User:Maggiehoang/London fog (beverage)/Lizzethmancilla 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? (provide username)
  • Maggiehoang
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Maggiehoang/London fog (beverage)

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • No, the lead is still the same. I think it would be beneficial to hint at what information will be covered in the rest of the coming paragraphs.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, it is a clear and concise sentence that gives an overview of the drink.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, it gives a brief history in the introductory sentence but doesn't talk about the major sections ahead.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • All the information in the introductory sentence isn't covered again the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content is relevant. It covers history, health benefits, precaution, and production.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, all the sources are from the last five years.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No, all the content belongs.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, it is not trying to make the readers think one things over another.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, the tone is very neutral and informative. It links all the information to the researchers/original site.
• 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?
  • No, it doesn't take a position.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • There are several from research articles. The rest of them come from coffee shops and some blogs.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Some sources have more information than others, but still reflect some aspect of the drink. For example, some articles focus on Black Tea, bergamot oil, antioxidants, etc.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, they are all within the past 5 years!
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, all the links work. There is just one where you can't click the link because it is from a database you need to log into.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, it is all clear and easy to follow along with. It provides a good amount of detail.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No, there aren't any grammatical or spelling errors that I could find.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, it is broken down into sections such as health benefits, precautions, and variation.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • There is only one picture of the drink by the lead.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • The caption just says the name of the drink, but doesn't provide any further detail.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes, the picture is from the wiki commons.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes, the image is at the top right corner. I think it would be interesting to add more pictures throughout the article such as when it talks about different components in the drink.

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?
  • Yes, a significant amount of information was added to the article. Before there were only short sentences in the different sections, but it is now a lot more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Maggie expanded on the health benefits of different aspects of a London Fog. She also added a lot more about the production and added a precaution section. It gives a more in depth understanding of the different components.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • I think there's a lot of opportunities to add pictures which I think would be beneficial. If possible, I also think there's room to expand on more health benefits.