User:Ijustinns/Group threat theory/Itbag 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? Ijustinns
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ijustinns/Group threat theory

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • It has not been edited.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • It describes the subject, but it is hard to understand the concept. I would say it would be worth rewording into more common/understandable vernacular.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The article as a whole doesn't really have many major sections to begin with, so that can be edited once more sections are added.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes, it has a brief mention of opposing theories, such as the contact hypothesis
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is brief and concise, however, I do think some of the details in the lead would be better suited for the body of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • It is relevant to the topic, it talks about the early work of Blumer and provides a slightly more detailed account of the different parts of the theory.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The article could explore more about the receptions of the theory, how people have accepted/supported it or rejected/opposed it. It could also outline more of Blumer's methodology for testing out his social theory, how he went about his research and such.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content is neutral
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, the theory itself is a claim, but no value judgements are stated regarding the claim's validity or accuracy.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Hasn't been enough added to determine
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • It is mostly from a primary source (paper written by Blumer)
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The source is directly from the person who developed the theory, but there could be more usage of secondary sources and other perspectives from sociologists and anthropologists.
• Are the sources current?
  • No
• 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?
  • It is well-written, and definitely is more understandable than the lead.
• 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?
  • Not enough sections added yet

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?

Images and media evaluation

Did not add any media.

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?
• 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?
  • The article is at least more detailed, not yet complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Provides very helpful and relevant context
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Develop beyond the origins

Overall evaluation

Needs work.