User:Quackdon/Man-on-the-side attack
General info[edit]
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? QuackDon
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Man-on-the-side attack
Lead[edit]
[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]
[edit]The Lead is concise and discusses information relevant to the topic. It has been updated with new content and is concise, specific, and easy to understand.
Content[edit]
[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[edit]
[edit]There is currently sections outside of the lead, but the data presented in the lead is accurate and up to date. There are a few topics missing and examples, which can fill in holes of equity gaps and information gaps.
Tone and Balance[edit]
[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]
[edit]The content is neutral and the claims presented are unbiased. I believe that multiple perspectives are well represented in this work.
Sources and References[edit]
[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[edit]
[edit]The new content is backed up by multiple reliable sources of information, which are through and current. The sources are diverse and accurate.
Organization[edit]
[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]
[edit]The content is well written and has no grammatical errors.
Images and Media[edit]
[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]
[edit]There are no images.
For New Articles Only[edit]
[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]
[edit]The article has 2-3 new sources. It has at least 4 sources currently and needs more patterns such as section headings.
Overall impressions[edit]
[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]
[edit]The content overall is a great start, but needs more information.