User:Flanagan Institute Applicant/Digital hoarding/Ha1154 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

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?

Content

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

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?

Images and Media

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Ginnerz06

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ginnerz06/Digital hoarding
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Digital hoarding

Evaluate the drafted changes

Peer review

Lead:

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Lead has been updated. Lead is incorrectly placed below the contents section. Rewording of lead has much improved the language and feel of the article.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Introductory sentence is greatly improved.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, lead only mentions medical research none of the other topics.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead concise but lacks other sections of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Mostly yes.

Is the content added up-to-date?

There has been a massive clean up of the references.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Overall content minimal. Large sections of the old article have been removed due to the poor quality of the original. A lot more substance is needed.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Unknown.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes, The major changes have been the removal of biased language and sections.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

This article has some starting points for additional sections that are not finished.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Article maintains neutral tone. There is a section of scientific studies that seems to be mostly commentary on the study. This literature review does not fit in this article.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Due to Wikipedia redirects I cannot access bibliography page. Significant edits have been made to the references section. Many of the older entries have been removed.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

One citation in the medical condition section appears to be a direct quote. Although cited, this is considered plagiarism by Wikipedia.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The article has started to shift to factual, scholarly medical literature. This is much more current than the original source material.

Are the sources current?

Majority of references are 2019 and newer.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Unknown.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

The majority of links are from professional journals. There is a lot of missing information that could be improved on. There are no references for these sections.

Check a few links. Do they work?

Spot check of links worked. Link #9 is partially broken.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

As previously stated the bulleted list of literature review is out of place. Possibly a further reading section.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I was not able to detect any errors.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Lead is incorrectly placed. One ill-conceived list replaces another. Other sections lack content.

Images and Media

Relevant image was removed by user.