User:Oluwadamilola Opayemi/Communal Coping/Ktjannat 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)
• Oluwadamilola Opayemi
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
• User:Oluwadamilola Opayemi/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content as it is a new article added by the peer.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Yes, the lead does have an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, for instance, 'Communal coping theory is the collective effort of members of a connected network (familial or social) to manage a distressful event.'
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Yes, the lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections, such as: it does provide the basic reasoning behind the necessity of communal coping framework.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Even though the lead is concise, it doesn’t really present any information that is not present in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
• It is very concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Yes, the content added to the topic is relevant, for example, benefits, costs, components, and models of communal coping.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• It’s a new article added by the peer, however, sources are used supporting the content, is not very up-to-date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• I would not say ‘missing’ but there could be a section ‘Research Application’ like how the concept of communal coping is applied in research in order to acknowledge the practical applications.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Yes, it seems neutral- it provides both the benefits and costs of communal coping.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Not really. However, it does talk about gender roles to the understanding of the influences on the use of communal coping where it focuses only on women.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Again, gender roles- it could demonstrate both men and women as well as other identities in relation to communal coping.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
• Not really, except the gender roles of women. Besides, in light of the cultural context, it points out that ‘cultures that promote group interest (collectivist cultures) over personal goals (individualist culture) are more likely to invest in communal coping.’

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Yes, the content is pretty much supported by a reliable secondary source of information, however, it’s not very up-to-date.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Yes, it does reflect the available literature on the topic from different angles.
• Are the sources current?
• No, the sources are not very current.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
• Yes, it does work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Yes, the content is pretty much concise, clear, and easy to understand. However, one part ‘Models of Communal Coping’ could be more descriptive.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• No, the content does not have notable grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
• Yes, the content is well-organized following different sections, for instance, background, components, benefits, costs, influences, and models of communal coping.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

There is an image added to the content, however, it’s not visible!

• 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?
• Yes, the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia’s Notability.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• I would say- yes, it accurately covers most available literature on the subject. However, there is always a room for extension to develop.
• 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?
• Yes, the article mostly follows the patterns, such as, section headings.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
• Yes, it does link, but very few spots.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• Considering the new article, it seems pretty enriched with data.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• Content headings are well-organized, and the content is easy to understand.
• How can the content added be improved?
• It could add ‘Research Application’ section and more up-to-date sources can be added. Some issues with APA style can be fixed. The image is not visible, which can be fixed.