User:Joereadel/The Day of the Triffids/WillKBeatty Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Joereadel

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Joereadel/The_Day_of_the_Triffids
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids

Evaluate the drafted changes

I don't see any edits for the Lead, which isn't necessarily an issue as I can see the existing lead is quite complete within the original article. The article is already C-Class so the room for improvement is going to be a bit slimmer, but it is also considered High-Importance so your edits are going to be considered more critical for the work.

The edits you've made in the Summary section help to make the article more coherent and easier to read, but I would double-check and make sure you don't have any run-on sentences such as; The novel's protagonist is Bill Masen, a biologist who has made his living working with triffids—tall, venomous, carnivorous plants capable of locomotion that are cultivated around the world for the high quality industrial oil they produce. An important thing to keep note is that the summary should be roughly around 700~ words, (feedback which I personally received from WikiEdu staff). It may be beneficial to actively trim the summary of non-critical information if possible.

the Publication History is fairly small on the existing article, so if you have any extra information, that could be a beneficial area to work on.

I don't see many edits to the Influences section, but it does seem that you've actually provided sourcing for some of the existing claims which is incredibly good.

Your addition of a Themes section looks to be incredibly well put together and also incredibly diverse. You've given this quite a lot of effort and I believe this will be a huge benefit for the article. The only thing you may need to be careful of is making any unsubstantiated claims. Wikipedia has rules against 'Synthesis' as in we cannot interpret events ourselves, we can only parrot what other authors may have said about the story unless explicitly stated within said media. Your sentence The triffids themselves are the product of selective breeding for the purpose of oil extraction, which points to the notion that the apocalypse was brought on by mankind’s desire to advance despite the threats posed by unchecked scientific progress. makes a claim about mankind's desire but it isn't really compounded by the sourcing you later provide. If you have any source or reference to back up this statement, I'd add it here. As for the Post-WWII British Politics and the Loss of Identity, you've thoroughly sourced these claims.

Overall I'd say you've made some great improvements to the article, my only advice would be to maybe trim down the Summary and clean up any run-on sentences/grammar.

WillKBeatty (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)