User:Panacotta101/Web browsing history/Moonstar0619 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) Panacotta101
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Panacotta101/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No
Content evaluation
[edit]The article's content is relevant to the topic and up-to date.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article has a neutral tone as there is no claim that appears heavily biased toward a particular position. Most of the content is the description of web browsing history instead of viewpoints.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
- Are the sources current? yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable and thorough secondary source of information. Links of the source do work.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes
Organization evaluation
[edit]All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable and thorough secondary source of information. Links of the source do work.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
- Are images well-captioned? yes
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The images used do enhance understanding of the topic and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
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? yes
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes
- 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
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes
New Article Evaluation
[edit]The article does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements. It also contains necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles.
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 article's overall status is relatively solid as the content is detailed and related to the topic. The article can be improved in the way of adding more relevant content.