User:Hannahfitsum/2018 Google walkouts/Laurenoneil82 Peer Review
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]- Whose work are you reviewing? Hannahfitsum
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hannahfitsum/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is no lead for this article.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is no lead for this article.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is no lead for this article.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There is no lead for this article.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There is no lead for this article.
Lead evaluation N/A
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, I believe so. She could also mention if this caused other walkouts throughout the country and the bigger impact of the walkouts/people who quit.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No!
Content evaluation 6/10. The content she had at the time of reviewing (Sunday 3/1) was relevant to the topic of the walkouts and added a new piece of information to the article as a whole, but there was only one new piece of information.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
- 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? No
Tone and balance evaluation 10/10. Good neutrality!
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I'm not positive that Wired is reliable but there is a link included.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not yet, but I'm sure it's getting there!
- Are the sources current? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes! The link provided does work.
Sources and references evaluation 5/10. Since this is a sandbox draft, there is only one source with two facts, however the source is linked and the linked works, just waiting on a proper citation.
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There is a lack of capitalization and the wording could be more clear to add detail (Who else could walk out? Other tech company employees? Employees nationwide or only in one area? etc) but the sentences were logical.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, but there were punctuation and capitalization errors.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the two sentences make clear sense, but could me more well-rounded and detailed (ie adding what Google's response actually was in sentence 2).
Organization evaluation 6/10
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: N/A
- 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 N/A
[edit]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? Not yet.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Only one source and it's not particularly reliable but I'm sure more sources are coming!
- 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? Not yet.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not yet.
New Article Evaluation This part of the article is definitely still incomplete, but the one source wasn't copied so the user is on the right track!
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I'm sure it will when more sources are added!
- What are the strengths of the content added? The sentences are easy to read.
- How can the content added be improved? More details can be added, and just more information in general!