User:Sabmarriie/Pet culture/Anjsan01 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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 for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Sabmarriie

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Sabmarriie/Pet culture
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Pet culture

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead

The lead was created and written by you, so it is all new information that is added to article
Introductory sentence concisely and clearly describes the article topic
There are no other sections because it is a blank article, so it is hard to say if the lead addresses other sections, but if you make sections based on the lead it would work well.
The lead is concise and easy to read and understand

Content

Content is relevant to the topic
All content is up-to-date based on the references
No missing content or content that does not belong

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral and not biased towards as particular position
There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented
No attempted at persuasion in favor of any positions

Sources and References

All content is backed up by reliable secondary sources such as journals and scientific articles
The content is an accurate representation of the cited sources
The sources are very thorough and provide a lot of information on animal care, relationships, and culture.
The sources are all current
All links work

Organization

The content is concise, clear and easy to read
There are a few grammatical errors such as in the 5th sentence of the first sentence “increased”
Content only reflects the lead, but the lead is well-organized to shows a fluid order of events

Images and Media

There are no images or media

New Article

The article is supported by several reliable secondary sources independent of the subject
The list of sources accurately reflects available literature on the subject
Follows patterns of other similar articles – more information and sections do need to be added
Article is linked to other articles

Overall Impressions

The content has improves the overall quality of the article significantly, there is a good basis to which the remainder of the article can be written
Strengths: Has a very clear lead and it gives a lot of insight into the idea of pet culture. I like how you were able to cover a lot of information very briefly but still with clear detail.
Having more structure for the remainder of the article would be helpful to see how the lead reflects the overall article.