User:Fredmaurer/Web design/Laurenbeth76 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? (provide username) Fredmaurer
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Web design

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has been cleaned up and made more organized.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it starts out defining the term and than it goes into the types of design there are, and concludes with the purpose of the article. It is brief, but holds a lot of information that will be told in detail later throughout the article.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead discusses things that will be discussed in detail, but not any major headings or points.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it helps the overall shape of the article
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the content matters in one subsection of the article at some point. Nothing seems out of place.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, everything is added to support a point that may have been lacking before. Nothing comes across as more favorable than another.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Tools and Technologies is a little short compared to the other sections.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all, it is all informative.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they all appear to be reliable
• 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? In my opinion, it all sounds and writes very clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, every section added has its own purpose and that is to create a stronger sub-heading.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the image chosen to include was a good choice.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes, it was defined very clearly.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, there is only one but it is at the top of the page, ready to grab the viewers attention.

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? The sources are all varying and reliable.
• 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? The section headings are common, but for the topic, I believe they should be.
• 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? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added? Cleans up and tightens the introduction on order to keep the reader interested, adds an image to capture the eye, and over-all keeps the reader more invested.
• How can the content added be improved? Even out the information for all sub-sections.