Jump to content

User:Wickypears/Rimantadine/Narvikvaren Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Lead

[edit]

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, it's very well and concisely put.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • No, doesn't feel completely necessary here.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • No
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • Concise

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Looks very good, Gives me a good idea of what I will be reading

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Absolutely
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Seems to be more up-to-date than the previous article.
  • 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

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • Yes, some edits neutralize the article a little
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • No, in fact some overrepresentations are removed.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • No

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Very well balanced, great neutral, informative tone.

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Looks to be, except for many of the synonyms.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • They reflect it well
  • Are the sources current?
    • They seem to be
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
    • Yes, N/A
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • You could use some more links, try linking a few more articles to topics mentioned (e.g. anticholinergic cells and Hepatitis C)

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Great, could have more links

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • I think it will look more organized in the finished article
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • None that I haven't pointed out in the talk section :)
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Well organized, just make sure it's well organized in the final article

Images and Media

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
    • Definitely. Both figures look great!
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • Yes!
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • As far as I can tell
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • The 3D protein model could be be bigger

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

Adjust the size maybe. The 3D model is difficult to interpret at the size it appears in your sandbox