User:Jchoii97/Cultural interest fraternities and sororities/Sihern Han 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? (provide username) Jchoii97
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jchoii97/Cultural interest fraternities and sororities
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No there has not been a change to the lead.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead's introductory sentence concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. I would not change the intro sentence.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, other than the automatic table of contents, which are just a bunch of table lists of organizations.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The entire lead includes information that is not present in the article.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise but does not include enough information.
Lead evaluation
[edit]Given there was not text included in the article, it makes sense that the Lead did not have that much information. Moving forward, I would try to add as much information to the body of the article so that the Lead can have some substance in it as well.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content on Asian cultural interest fraternities and sororities that was added is relevant to the topic.
- Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up to date. The paragraph added to the article has information from the current NAPA website.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The new content added to the Asian American section adds important context. It belongs in the article. However, there needs to be equal information about the other cultural interest fraternities and sororities.
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is good, just do the same for the other cultures.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? The content added is neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No bias toward a particular position is present.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented, although more information needs to be added to the other cultural interest groups.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Tone and balance is fair for the little that has been added to the article so far.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The new content is backed up by a primary source (the website for the organization).
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They are not thorough. There are definitely better sources available for the topic.
- Are the sources current? The two sources are current (they aren't dated but are on the current website for the organizations so they can be assumed to be current).
- Check a few links. Do they work? The link that was added works. The second link that was already present does not work. The third and last link works but links to a general page that doesn't include the correct information.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Needs more time and energy.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is short but well written.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not applicable given the little information added.
Organization evaluation
[edit]N/A
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]N/A
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?
- 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?
New Article Evaluation
[edit]N/A
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added definitely improvse the overall quality of the article - important context is added for the Asian American section.
- What are the strengths of the content added? Adds important context.
- How can the content added be improved? By adding more content and context.
Overall evaluation
[edit]Good work, just needs more time spent.