Jump to content

User:Ryienblackwood/Saint Stephen's Episcopal Church (Forest, Virginia)/Bquinn428 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]

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?
    • Too short
  • 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. Very little information to go by.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • Too concise

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Lead is way too short and needs a lot more information.

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?
    • yes;
      • history section mentions restoration work - need to clarify what type of Preservation work was done: restoration, rehabilitation, etc.
        • history section needs to be rewritten because it closely matches the churches website description
      • Add embedded links
      • could use more information on the landscaping of the property and how it was styled/designed to enhance the property
      • Needs citations throughout

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?
    • 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]

great overall

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • not all of it
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • yes
  • Are the sources current?
    • yes
  • 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?
    • yes, still a work in progress
  • 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?
    • no but it is a work in progress

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Clearly a work in progress

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

[edit]

need more images

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?
    • it definitely will
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • way more thorough than the original
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • needs more citations

Overall evaluation

[edit]

Great job overall but it needs to be structured into sections