User:Panacotta101/Web browsing history/Imakespaghetti29 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? Panacotta101
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Link
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: The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added; and includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections and doesn't include information that isn't present in the article. The Lead is concise and not overly detailed.
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?
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Content evaluation: The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. From my understanding of the topic, there is no content present that does not belong. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.
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: The content added is neutral and the claims do not appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No viewpoints are under or overrepresented and the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.
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?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation: The new content added is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources added yet are current, and thorough and do reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources I checked are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and do include historically marginalized individuals where possible. I checked a few links, and they do work!
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: The content added is well-written and is concise, clear and easy to read. The content does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The content added is well-organized and broken down into various sections that reflect the major points of the topic.
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: The article does include a very interesting image related to artwork related to browsing history, which is well-captioned. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright evaluations and are laid out in a visually appealing way. However, I do think the images could be more relevant and connected to the actual content.
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: This article is not a new article.
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: The content added improved the overall quality of the article and made the article more complete. The strengths of the content added is that it is detailed and descriptive and a good introduction to a reader new to the topic. The content can be improved by adding more detail to the various sections.