User:Sjapatel/Glass cliff/Gobears12 Peer Review
II. Evaluate the article
Evaluate the article using the following rubric. Note, you do not need to leave comments for each question. Use the comments boxes to elaborate on notable successes or highlight key shortcomings of the article.
Lead section
[edit]A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
| QUESTION | YES/NO | COMMENTS |
| Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? | Yes | |
| Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? | Yes | |
| Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) | No | |
| Is the lead concise (as opposed to overly detailed)? | Yes |
Content
[edit]A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
| QUESTION | YES/NO | COMMENTS |
| Is the article's content relevant to the topic? | Yes | |
| Is the content up-to-date? | Yes | The article includes many recent sources and examples. |
| Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? | Yes | Sophie Wilmes’ entry in the examples section should be edited or removed. The article states that she became prime minister in 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic, while her own wikipedia page says she became prime minister in 2019. Liz Truss’ entry also seems weak, and should probably be significantly edited or removed. Also, there are many references to people or organizations in the draft that could benefit from being linked to their own wikipedia articles. |
| Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? That is, does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? | Yes |
Tone and Balance
[edit]Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
| QUESTION | YES/NO | COMMENTS |
| Is the article neutral? | Yes | |
| Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? | No | The article is strong at outlining the scholarly debate between those who argue for and against the existence of a gender gap, and between the different theorized causal mechanisms of the gap. Your additions to the article do a good job of adding new perspectives from researchers to the scholarly debate on the topic. |
| Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? | No | |
| Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? | n/a | |
| Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? | No |
Sources and References
[edit]A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
| QUESTION | YES/NO | COMMENTS |
| Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? | Yes | The article does a good job of citing multiple sources for many of its key claims, helping to convey a sense of scholarly consensus that makes the article strong. |
| Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? | Yes | |
| Are the sources current? | Yes | The sources from the draft are up to date, but I would suggest getting rid of the point in one of your sentences that says “recent research,” as this is relative to this particular point in time. |
| Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? | Yes | Many sources are written by women, which seems particularly important on this topic. |
| 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.) | No | |
| Check a few links. Do they work? | Yes | None of the links I chose were broken or disfunctional. |
Organization and writing quality
[edit]The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
| QUESTION | YES/NO | COMMENTS |
| Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? | Yes | Overall, the draft does a good job of being clear. In the final paragraph in the explanation section, however, the syntax is awkward, the word resources is repeated a lot and I find it difficult to understand what the sentences are conveying (i.e. what is the difference between the social and financial “resources” of a position). Also, I don’t understand what the characterization of Turkey as a country with “high levels of femininity” is supposed to mean. |
| Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? | Yes | The sandbox draft always capitalizes “glass cliff,” while the text already in the article is not. Women is capitalized at one point, when it is not at the beginning of a sentence. Citations are frequently put before the period at the end of the sentence. |
| Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? | Yes | The overview & explanation sections do a good job of breaking up general information about the gender cliff concept, and the examples section is good for providing some concreteness to the page. The addition of a section on racial and ethnic minorities is a great idea, and really helps to add depth to the topic. The section on implications for women executives is also quite useful, but is quite short and could probably benefit from more detail. |
Images and Media
[edit]| QUESTION | YES/NO | COMMENTS |
| Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? | No | The article could benefit from diagrams that help to explain the topic (if they exist) or more dynamic photos of women who demonstrate examples of the glass cliff (i.e. Dilma Rousseff at her impeachment, rather than static photos of figures like Theresa May, detached from the crises that defined her time in leadership). |
| Are images well-captioned? | Yes | |
| Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? | Yes | |
| Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? | Yes |
III. Overall impressions
This article, overall, is well-written and very informative. Sources are used very effectively, and their findings are condensed into clear and concise sentences. I really learned a lot from this article, so it is off to a good start.
It could benefit from a thorough proofread for grammatical and stylistic errors, some of which I have noted above. Furthermore, the first two paragraphs from the draft’s explanation section seem a little repetitive with what is already in the article, so fusing the two without repeating information would be very helpful for future readers. Different sources that reach similar conclusions could also be placed alongside each other, even if it means citing certain sources more often, to streamline the overview and explanation sections. Similarly, for some of the sources it does not seem necessary to write out the author’s names. To my knowledge, Wikipedia articles do not usually include authors’ names that person is relevant to the article later on. If someone is interested in finding out which researchers made a particular finding, they will be able to look at the citation.