Jump to content

User:Stefanija Kovacevic/sandbox/Peer Review Apple Scab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review

[edit]

General info

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
    • Yes, lead has been reformatted and includes new information from Anna.
  • 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?
    • Alludes to topics that will be covered, but could use more information.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • No, lead is self-contained (ie, all information present is found in article).
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Overall strong, requires minor tweaks to include some examples from the sections in the article.

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes, all content added is relevant to the topic of apple scab, it's life cycle, history, detection and control methods.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes, sources are credible and current.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • Yes, the editor has indicated that they need to find more sources for the Controls section.

Content evaluation

[edit]

Very good progress for this stage of editing; nearly complete apart from some sections, very well organized, good flow.

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • The content added is neutral.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • Select few sentences contain slightly biased sentence structures, such as "It may be noted that the introduction of resistant cultivars has been of somewhat limited success due to low fruit quality," and "Understanding infection periods is another critical aspect...". User may consider changing phrasing to "However due to low fruit quality the cultivars were not well received," and "Understanding infection period is a control tactic used by growers with statistically high rates of success when used in predictive modelling (link to predictive modelling Wiki article)," if the sources support these claims (I do not know).
  • Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
    • Hard to tell.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • No, content is purely informational.

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Overall very nonpartisan with a neutral tone.

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Yes, most/all content that has not been indicated otherwise has sources from credible sites to support 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?

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Strong list of credible sources at this stage, however it should be attempted to find open-access versions of cited journal articles that currently aren't.

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Yes, some changes in sentence structure were mentioned above.
  • 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, sections were well-chosen and information in the sections is on-topic.

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Excellent.

Images and Media

[edit]

IMAGES AND MEDIA HAS BEEN ASSIGNED AS A FUTURE TASK CATEGORY BY INSTRUCTOR AND WAS THEREFORE NOT EVALUATED IN THIS PEER REVIEW.

Overall impressions

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
    • Yes, considerably more so.
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • So far, the disease cycle has been expanded and more scientific terms have been added, a history section has been added (which is important in my opinion), and predictive modelling has been mentioned, which is something many people might not know about.
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • Continued addition to the controls section and some minor sentence structure edits. Media and images to be added in the coming weeks as a class exercise.

Overall evaluation

[edit]

Has surpassed milestones set at this time, continued editing will make this an ideal Wiki article when the final version is complete.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Stefanija_Kovacevic/sandbox/Peer_Review_Apple_Scab&oldid=944638329"