User:Sasharoach/User:Isdewell/Towpath Cafe (London)/Dkilleen 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

Whose work are you reviewing?

Isabella Dewell or Isdewell

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Isdewell/Towpath Cafe (London)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): n/a

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Yes, the content has been updated, as this is a new page with current information.
Yes, the lead gives a short summary of what the Towpath Cafe is and where it is located.
Not quite, has a good outline, but doesn't specify. I would recommend adding some more specific information that leads to the main sections.
Partially, the lead talks about the seasons when Towpath is popular, but then is not addressed in the main sections.
The lead is very concise.

Content

Yes, the content provided gives a clear outline of the restaurant and location. More specific information could be added about the restaurants history.
Yes, all content is current as this is a new article.
I believe that all the information given is supportive of the topic, but as I stated above, I believe more information about the restaurants history would be insightful.
No, it doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps. All the information given was specifics about the restaurant location, menu and publications, it does not address any topics having to do with underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

For the most part the content is neutral. The author added a "review" section which features some personal reviews on the restaurant.
Once again, addressing the "reviews" section of the article, the comments are heavily biased supporting the restaurant. Is this what a wiki page is looking for?
The views supporting the restaurant are the only views represented in the article. Are there any underrepresented viewpoints about Towpath?
The majority of the information in the article is unbiased, with exception to the "reviews" section.

Sources and References

Yes, the location sources are backed with a .org source and the Towpath information is linked directly to the Towpath website.
Yes, this article directly reflects the same and correct information.
The author only used 2 sources- Was there no other extensive available literature on the topic?
Yes, all sources are current.
No, the sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors. The two women who started Towpath are the only authors. Isdewell, do you think this creates biases?
From my research it was very difficult to find non biased information on this restaurant. I did not find any peer reviewed articles or scholarly articles on this.
Yes, all the links work.

Organization

Yes, the content is well written, very easy to ready.
I didn’t notice any spelling errors, but I did find some of the sentences to be incomplete or lacking information.
Yes, the content was well organized and broken down into sections that highlighted major points.

Images and Media

My peer did not add pictures. I highly recommend for better comprehension!

For New Articles Only

Yes, the article is supported by 2 articles, but I do not believe that they are independent of the topic.
The source list is not extensive. I represents the information in the article well, but I believe there are more sources that could help define the history of this website.
Yes, I find it very similar to other articles about restaurants, with the exception of a history section. But my peer added a information box about the restaurant information specifics that I found helpful. I have seen similar context boxes like this in other articles.

Overall Impressions

For being a brand new article, I believe my peer did a good job of collecting and composing information on this topic.
I enjoyed how my peer talked about more than just the restaurant, she wrote about the women who started it. I think this background is a strong point of this article.
However, I wish my peer would have collected more information the history of Towpath and how it came to be.