Jump to content

User:HistoryandLiterature/James P.M. Ntozi/Meticulousonion 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?
    • Yes
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Perfect
  • 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?
    • No
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • The first three sentences are excellent, the last two may best serve the article leading the research section.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

You have a lot of information to synthesize into a small lead here, I think you are on the right track but could focus it in a bit more.

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • No

Content evaluation

[edit]

You have discovered a great deal of information on the subject and it all serves to build a background of him. It seems like you found a lot of information from your sources, so much so that it may be worth going back and ensuring that all information included is relevant to his life and career. I found that the section on his work at the university included some accomplishments that were impressive at the university but may not be as useful for a world audience.

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • Yes
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • None
  • 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

[edit]

Your article does an excellent job of simply presenting the facts you have researched without putting any spin on them. Great work!

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Yes, several of your citations give confirming information to each other.
  • 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, but I fear that they could be inaccessible to someone outside of OSU due to the proxy links. If the articles have a public facing link I would try to replace the links.

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Once again, you have found an impressive amount of research on his life. If possible, it would be interesting to have a little more information on his work and potentially some more examples of it being used by governments or other academics to conduct change.

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Yes, within each section
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • None apparent
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes and no. It is subdivided well but the organization of the sections could be made more fluid.

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Your writing is excellent within each section. From a reader's perspective, I think it would be helpful to reorganize the article to reflect aspects of the career with chronological subdivisions in each section. I have found that a lot of articles will organize major parts of careers (education, research, etc) chronologically and then include any additional information at the end.

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]

It can be a challenge to find fair use images for these subjects, but if you can locate anything for the sub-topics it may be useful. For example, https://ccsearch.creativecommons.org/photos/b9f2d5c8-e1e8-4c53-8ed4-db4138b6e2a3 is an image of the main building at Makerere that could be used in your section on it.

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?
    • Yes
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
    • Yes
  • 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?
    • No
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
    • Yes

New Article Evaluation

[edit]

You have done great work gathering sources and writing an article. I think the only way to improve from here is to lock down the formatting of the article. There is a good template included in the editor (although it can be really awful when you paste it into the article) that can help give an idea for how to format. I have included it at the bottom of this reply so you don't accidentally break your sandbox article (like I did) when you paste it in.

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]

Your article is in a great place from an information perspective and just needs a little more work to be ready for publishing. Well done!



Template:

[edit]