Jump to content

User:Paytdaddy/Processing fluency/Cecethack Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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? Paytdaddy
  • Link to draft you're reviewing: Processing fluency

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but a little confusing, don't know if its about processing fluency, perceptual fluency or Retrieval fluency
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? under detailed, has only three sentences

Lead evaluation

[edit]

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? Missing, confusing article

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? Yes
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Sort of, pro processing fluency, lots of facts about it, which if true because the article is about it.
  • Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? Things are underrepresented, not sure what but I'm sure there is.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

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, lots with in 10 years
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Kind of all over the place
  • 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? Needs more headers to break up work, needs to be re-organized.

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Images and Media

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
  • Are images well-captioned? N/A
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

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? Yes and no, it does feel more complete. But still confusing.
  • What are the strengths of the content added? Lots of useful information for the article, all relevant to what you are trying to say/talk about.
  • How can the content added be improved? Needs to be broken up into different headers, so that it is easier to follow.

Overall evaluation

[edit]