User:Francescacast/Cheryl Heller/Adam.Klekman Peer Review

Peer review

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

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Francescacast
• Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Francescacast/Cheryl_Heller/Adam.Klekman_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review

Lead

Guiding questions:

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

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it appears that she has added a lot of information that is all up to date in her life.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? More concisive links would be nice.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? A couple which she should provide more facts on.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Absolutely

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

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

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A couple that she will have to go in and edit herself. She should use the help of word for this.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Very organized

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 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? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Meets the courses needs.
• 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? Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it does but she needs to back up her claims more.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The introduction a well as the story of her life.
• How can the content added be improved? Stronger links in addition to backing up her claims more.