User:Robbyhindy/Chernobyl exclusion zone/Carson277 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)
  • Robbyhindy
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Robbyhindy/Chernobyl exclusion zone

Lead

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

I cannot tell if the content currently in the draft is a reflection of the edits to the lead, but if so it does not seem like much of the information included in the draft is new information. Moreover, it does not include any description of the article's major sections. However, given the abundance of information that would need to be covered in an article about the Chernobyl Disaster, the information in the draft is concise.

Content

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 appears up to date; however it is unclear whether content is missing or does not belong because there is no section heading. Moreover, the article does not address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. An interesting step to take would be to look into some primary or secondary sources about the people who are living in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone or the perspectives of the people living there during the evacuations. Lastly, it seems that — at this point — the draft is not referencing a lot of new information that could be included in the article. In its current state, the article itself seems well written and that's why a section heading for the draft would be helpful for organizing and determining what fits where and whether the information added is unique or redundant.

Tone and Balance

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 there are no claims that seem heavily biased towards any particular position. I think the viewpoint of the residents, current and previous, are underrepresented and it would make the draft feel more comprehensive if a section was added on their voices.

Sources and References

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 content is not backed up by any particular secondary sources. Going forward the editor should make sure to include a section with references and possibly hyperlinks to those sources as well. The only things referenced are other wikipedia pages; however, the sources used should be primary sources or peer reviewed secondary sources. There is an interesting book called "Voices from Chernobyl" that is written like a memoir and chronicles the different experiences of specific individuals living in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone before and after the disaster. Using a source like this would be a good way of including the viewpoints of some underrepresented groups.

Organization

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 written is concise, clear, and easy to read and does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The draft lacks a structure so a good next step would be to include a section heading so it is clear which pieces are referring to which part of the wikipedia article.

Images and Media

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?

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?
• 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?

Overall impressions

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?