User:Jugem Jugem 1945/Ivan Yaeger/VicVal2315 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?

Jugem Jugem 1945

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jugem Jugem 1945/Ivan Yaeger
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): User:Jugem Jugem 1945/Ivan Yaeger

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead is well written and includes an introductory sentence that sufficiently explains who and what the article is about. The lead does not include a brief description of each major section. The lead can be edited to include one brief piece of information for each subsequent section. The lead does not include any information that is not present elsewhere in the article. The lead is written concisely and is not filled with unnecessary details.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic, as it details details about the subject's life, work, patents and education. I feel that 2 of 3 sources are current as they are dates 3/18/24. The final source is dated 3/10/17/ and could be replaced with a more current source if possible. I found no evidence of content missing or the inclusion of content that does not belong in the article. The article does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance

The content added appears to be neutral in tone, as it does not favor any specific view or stance. The sources used come from neutral contributors. The article does not make any claims that appear heavily biased towards a specific position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. The information presented is well balanced. I do not feel that the added content attempts to persuade the reader towards favoring anything or attempt to dissuade the reader from supporting anything.

Sources and References

All of the content includes sources listed throughout. The content accurately reflects the information that is present in the sources. I feel that the sources are thorough because they cover the subject's life and work accurately. Also, the sources used go into detail about Yaeger's patents which is a nice touch. The sources used could be more diverse, as there is not much diversity in the 3 sources that were listed. I could not find any evidence of historically marginalized individuals credited as authors. 2 of 3 sources are from the current month and year. 1 source is from 2013 and could be replaced with a more current selection. I could not find a better source about Yaeger from a peer reviewed origin. All 3 of the links work correctly.

Organization

The added content could be written better. For example, in the "Work" section, the final sentence of the first paragraph is written poorly and does not make it clear what the patent was actually for. Besides this correction, the rest of the article is written satisfactorily. The article contains grammatical an spelling errors such as use of "a" instead of "an" in the first sentence of the Lead. In the first paragraph of the "Work" section created is spelled "crated". The content is well organized and is broken up into sections for each category.

Images and Media

The articles does not contain images and media.

For New Articles

The article meets Wikipedia's notability requirement. The list of sources is not long but covers a lot of information on the subject. The article does not link to another article so it is more discoverable.

Overall Impressions

I feel that the added content has made the article more complete. The inclusion of the Patents section made the work section more complete. The strength of the added content is the depth of information that was provided The patents section is an example. The added content could be improved by covering more information about the subject's personal life.