User:Nleibovici/Ann Willoughby/LyssBlyss 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? (Nleibovici)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nleibovici/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation

• The lead appears to not have been updated to reflect the new content. Although the lead says Ann Willoughby is the founder of "Ann Willoughby & Associates", the Early Career section says it is now known as "Willoughby Design". The lead should reflect this name change.
• The lead is short yet comprehensive, however it doesn't include a brief description of the article's new content.

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?

Content evaluation

• The content appears to be well-researched, up-to-date, and relevant to the article's subject.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

• The added content appears to be neutral. No statements appear to be biased towards a particular position.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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

• All the new content appears to be backed up by reliable and current secondary sources from the Annotated Bibliography, and the links appear to work. Just the History section needs citations added to the text.

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?

Organization evaluation

• The content is well-written.
• The Clients section could be organized differently, specifically in the Corporate and Packaging sub-sections. The Corporate and Packaging sub-sections titles may not even be needed. All these statements from those sub-sections can go under an overall "Clients and Corporate Collaborations" section. And unless it is meant to be a bulleted list, each statement doesn't need to start with the client/company name. Finally, the company names do not need to be in all caps. Ex: "WILLIAMS SONOMA. Researched early 20th century European packaging, architecture,...etc.", would flow better as "For Williams-Sonoma, Willoughby Design researched early 20th century European packaging, architecture,...etc."

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 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?

Overall evaluation

• The new content has vastly improved the overall quality of the article. The Early Career and Willoughby Design History sections especially help the article feel more complete.
• My only suggestions are to add more information to the lead the reflect the new content (maybe just add some small bits of information, such as what she is most famous for), and rephrase the content in the Clients section.