User:Tmaraki/The Enchantments/Maria.Au20 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? (provide username) Tmaraki
• Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Tmaraki/The Enchantments

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
• 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? Yes, it includes a more detailed overview of article as well as a new paragraph on conservation efforts.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Thoroughly detailed.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No bias is presented.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? None.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, sources are retrieved from very reliable sources.
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/A
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, information and content flows well.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, images were included in the original article.
• 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.

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?
• 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? The article looks more complete and informational than it was previously.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Very significant to the topic as it added another perspective and data for the reader to consider.
• How can the content added be improved? Article is well structured, clear, and reliable. It could do with fewer images but overall, the new version of the article is done well.