User:Tandoori Jones/Zinc mining/Devlin Vong Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (Tandoori Jones)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tandoori Jones/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, new heading have been added along with addition information.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The lead introductory sentence properly demonstrates the main topic of the article.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, as new sections have been recently added.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The lead give new information and new topics not present in the current article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • The content added another layer of depth to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Some of the content is dated, while some is very recent
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The content added is very useful in furthering the completion of the article.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Content is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No biases are added with the new content.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Points are represented as neutral as possible.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The content added maintains a neutral tone and stance.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Sources for the new content are reliable.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources further expand on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • Most of the sources are current, a few are dated.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The links are functional.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The new content is clear and brief, not dragging any of its main points.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • There aren't any major grammatical errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The content is organized properly, adding in a few extra heading to break up the main points.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • The articles images do not help understanding.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Images are not captioned very well, some information is missing along with proper sourcing.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Images do not adhere to regulations
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • The images are appealing but not useful.

For New Articles Only

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?
  • The article contains multiple useful sources, with the added information doubling its total references.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • The added content provides many secondary sources with available literature.
• 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?
  • Yes, the article follow the similar trend of other articles, containing graphs, tables and history.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • The article does link to many other articles.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The added information added further insight on the topic, providing more depth to the history and process of the topic.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The strength of the content added is the information added is highly necessary for the development of the article.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The content added presented as individual points rather than as a main topic.