User:Muhyul Go/Elizabeth Ngugi/InnocentSplit 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? Muhyul Go
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Muhyul Go/Elizabeth Ngugi
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- I do not believe that the author has yet added a "lead" section to their article.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- While the author does have a brief section about the researcher in question, I do not believe that they have yet organized the information into sections such as a lead.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Not yet.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Not present yet.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Not present yet.
Lead evaluation: I believe that the lead section has yet to be added to this article.
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes. So far the content briefly discusses the role of the researcher in question in Kenyan healthcare as it relates to HIV.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- The articles cited are a bit dated however I do not believe this section is complete yet.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I am not particularly familiar with how prolific this researcher was however the article is a bit small at the moment which leads me to believe that the author is still working on adding information.
Content evaluation: The information thus far is good however I believe that the author is still working to flesh out the story of the researcher.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No. The content of the article does not particularly lend itself to feelings of persuasion.
Tone and balance evaluation: This article thus far does a good job at presenting the information in a factual, non-biased manner.
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes. Both claims made are cited by reputable sources.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Only two sources are cited at the moment which leads me to believe that, as of right now, it is not thorough however I believe the author is still in progress.
- Are the sources current?
- Not quite- the articles are a bit dated, with the most recent published in 1992.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes.
Sources and references evaluation: The two sources given are reputable however they are a bit dated.
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not that I saw.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- I think that the article could benefit from a table of contents / sectioning once it is more fleshed out.
Organization evaluation: As is, the syntax is easy to read and there do not appear to be grammatical issues. I think as information is added, sectioning and content tables could help.
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No.
- Are images well-captioned?
- N/A
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- N/A
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- N/A
Images and media evaluation: Not present.
[edit]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?
- The article does have two sources attributed to it so far however the shortness of the article and lack of additional sources would likely lead it to not meet the notability requirements. I believe the author is still working on the article, though, so this will likely be resolved.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- The list of sources is still quite small however the article is still in progress.
- 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?
- As more information, I think the article could benefit from sectioning and a table of contents to organize the message.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- No- a "see also" section could be beneficial.
New Article Evaluation: still in progress; needs a bit of work to achieve the notability requirement but it'll get there :)
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- I think the article is still largely in progress but a start has been made.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- The article thus far lays out foundational information about the researcher in question.
- How can the content added be improved?
- Adding additional information on the researcher, using images, utilizing sectioning tools