User:Veronicajones72/Kitchenaid/Pfuller3 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)
• Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• 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?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

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?

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

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?

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?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

This article didn’t come with a sandbox draft, the only version of this article that was available was the published wikipedia article. Therefore, I made the assumption that she had already published her article, so my peer review on the kitchen aid article would be based on the overall article assuming that she wrote most or all of this work.

The article begins with a substantial amount of background information on the product, including its origin and the new models that have been offered since this product was created. There was also several reliable sources that this author drew from in order to create this summary of this product. Although there was a lot of information provided in this article, it appears that the author may not have been completely impartial to this product. There is a lot of positive information in this article making it seem as if this article could have been the background information that was posted on a baking website that sells kitchen aids. But, I understand that this product was meant to make lives easier, so there won’t be much “bad press” regarding this product. The author even goes on to explain how the product wasn’t produced during world war II due to the factory being shut down. Then after the war, they continued production of the kitchen aid and moved their factory to Ohio in order to expand the company.

Information aside, this article was well written and answered just about any question that someone may be able to think of when thinking about how this product came to be what it is today. With that being said, knowing this product and the many different accessories that it comes with, there wasn’t much to be said about those attachments and different ways that it can be used. These different accessories would have been a more recent addition to the product, so I was expecting to see them towards the end of the article, but I wasn’t able to find any section regarding the different uses and variations of this product in this article. The information in this article didn’t seem to be completely balanced as a high majority of the information on the kitchen aid had to do with the continued production of the kitchen aid and the marketing of this product. But there was a good amount of information on the evolution of selling this product. First it was sold door to door by women, then being sold to the US Navy, then eventually being sold to the everyday consumers to be used in any normal kitchen across the country. Overall, this article seemed to be centered around the marketing and production side of this product rather than the consumer’s use of the product. I do believe that if the accessories and adaptations of this product could be added to this article then it would be a well rounded and complete summary of this product and how it found its way into millions of kitchens across the world. Other than this one specific lack of information, this article was easy to understand and had a clear structure that drew from several reliable sources and created quality background information and other types of information necessary to understanding the functionality of this product.