Jump to content

User:Ebhill1998/Amphilepidida/Chelseanav23 Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review

[edit]

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

[edit]

- Lead is very short. The introductory sentence is concise and describes the organism. The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead is not detailed enough.

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

[edit]

Content is relevant to the topic. The content is up-to-date. There is a lot of missing content. I'm sure it will be added though.

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

There is no bias. The information was presented well in that there is no bias. Good overall tone. Not persuasive.

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Are the sources current?
  • Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

There is only one source, and the link for it does not work so I am unable to check if it is backed by this source.

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

[edit]

The content is well-written, just too short. There are no spelling or grammar errors. The sections are not distinguished with a heading, just more paragraph font. This should be changed to show the morphological features, habitat, distribution sections more easily.

Images and Media

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Are images well-captioned?
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

There are no images.

For New Articles Only

[edit]

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

  • Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation

[edit]

There are no secondary sources. One source that does not work. There are no infoboxes, section headings, etc. There are two article links that make ie more discoverable.

Overall impressions

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
  • How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

[edit]

The article is too short. The article has good information and is grammatically correct, but it needs more information. It also needs headings and graphics. But you're off to a great start.