User:Oliviafrye/Elizabeth Haysom/Sophie Potts 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)
- Oliviafrye
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]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
[edit]- Yes, the additions in her sandbox were added to the article
- Introductory sentence is concise and clear.
- The article's major sections should be outlined in one additional sentence at the end of the lead.
- The information on the Haysom parents (first few sentences of second paragraph of lead) are not later spoken about.
- The Lead has a few details ^ that should rather be included in the body of the article (I don't think they're fundamental to the article, but more so additional context.
Content
[edit]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
[edit]- I think the added content is both relevant and up-to-date. The article otherwise had not made clear Haysom's whereabouts after the trial and to where she was being deported, so I think this addition is great.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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
[edit]- The added contente is neutral and unbiased, with no apparent argument present.
Sources and References
[edit]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
[edit]- The ABC news poll doesn't seem to have any information on this case, but I could have been looking in the wrong place.
- The other 3 articles are all current and reliable news sources -- great updates on the parole situations of the convicts.
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?
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Organization evaluation
[edit]- The content is all well organized. I think a few things could be reworded or grammatically shifted for sake of clarification.
- For instance, could maybe say "due to her Canadian citizenship" instead of "since she is a Canadian citizen" (just sounds more clear when I read it in my head, but not necessarily shorter, perhaps a personal choice!).
Images and Media
[edit]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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]- media wasn't added
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?
- 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?
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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]- The content added definitely improves the article. It adds clarity where needed and most importantly updates the article on the Haysom's recent parole situation.
- I think the introduction could definitely be edited down to be more concise and paint a clearer outline of the article as a whole. There are some extraneous details about the parents and the arrest that could be alluded to in the lead, but elaborated on later.
- Overall, great work!!