User:Ucalpoli/Missing Women Commission of Inquiry/Smalltowns23 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? (provide username)
- Ucapoli
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, clear and concise
- 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?
- No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Is quite detailed but, but overall well done
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes very relevant
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Slightly but it is the sandbox version of the content added to the page
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- Yes, the topic is exclusively on a group that has been overlooked and repressed
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, information is neutral but also very informative
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, one article from a news source as well as one that was a journal type article
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, current and up to date
- Are the sources current?
- Yes, especially since this situation is ongoing
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, informative and easy to read
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not that I saw
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes broken into well organized and easy to read paragraphs
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- The addition of more pictures and or quotes would help with the aesthetic appeal of the article
- Are images well-captioned?
- The one picture on the page is very well captioned
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes
Images and media evaluation
[edit]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]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes I believe that they information that was added to the article helped with the overall understanding to the complexed situation that is being written about.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- The content added adds to the overall understanding to the article, and gives the reader some extra background knowledge on the topic at hand
- How can the content added be improved?
- I believe that quotations and pictures would add a lot to the article, as just a way to break up the text