User:NandoVUSC/Periclimenes/Brigv713 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) NandoVUSC
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Periclimenes
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? no new content has been added
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? the wiki page itself does but there is nothing new and nothing in sandbox
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no sections
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? not much in article
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? no content
- Is the content added up-to-date? the previous stuff put in is yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? there is a lot missing!
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? no new but content there yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? yes very underrepresented
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no new content but old page has sources!
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]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? nope
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? you need sections
Organization evaluation
[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? n/a
- 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
[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? needs sources needs info
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? there are four sources on the page. but none of them are newly added
- 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]Overall impressions
[edit]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?