User:Stefanija Kovacevic/Rhagoletis mendax/Liambuirs Peer Review
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]- Whose work are you reviewing? Stefanija Kovacevic
- Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Stefanija Kovacevic/Rhagoletis mendax
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Not yet
- 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?
- No (as there are no major sections yet)
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes (But it can be seen that there are plans to add sections on this information in future drafts)
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is concise
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead provides a good background on Rhagoletis mendax and has been altered to improve clarity but will require a few sentences describing future sections once they are written as there is currently limited added content.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- The section headers are all relevant to the topic as are the additions to the lead.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yet to be determined
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There is clearly content missing but as this is a first draft it is understandable that it is still a work in progress
Content evaluation
[edit]The additions to the lead helped to improve it's clarity and the new section headers with subsection titles have created an expansive template for discussing Rhagoletis mendax
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?
- Yes, in the drafts current state all of the sections are underrepresented but I imagine this will change in the coming weeks.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Upon filling in information under the section headers the article will have a well balanced body
Sources and References
[edit]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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]No sources have been cited yet in the draft but the current leads to follow up on look thorough, relatively current for the most part, and have working links.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
- 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?
- Yes, just needs to be filled in now
Organization evaluation
[edit]The section organisation is logical and the current added content improves clarity
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]N/A
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]N/A
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes and once the sections are elaborated on this will provide a very significant improvement to the article's overall quality
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- The sections/subsections cover the various aspects that one would want to learn about Rhagoletis mendax and will drastically improve this article upon completion
- How can the content added be improved?
- Simply by elaboration
Overall evaluation
[edit]This draft provides a solid template for further drafts on the topic. The lead has been improved as has the organization of the article page. The references to follow up on are thorough, current and provide many leads for future work on the topic. Overall I would say this is a good starting point to begin development of the article. It has been structured well and is an ambitious feat considering the lack of information originally included in the article. Nice start Steph!