User:WikiDiscussion/Black Death/Bryozoria Peer Review
Peer review by Bryan Ozoria/ User:Bryozoria
[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? (Wlin486)
- Link to draft you're reviewing:Black Death
Lead
[edit]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? 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? The Lead is concise
Lead evaluation
[edit]The Lead does a good job of quickly describing the events of Black Death, the estimate of deaths surrounding the Black Death as well as where in the world it was recorded happening. Also tying in the time of the Black Death's existance.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, extremely relevant
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
Content evaluation
[edit]The Content is straightforward in explaining what they are in relation to the Black Plague, yet it can be a bit strong for anybody under the age of 18, perhaps a warning should follow before reading the article.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes
- 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]Overall the tone and balance of the article represents no bias, just facts of the event.
Sources and References
[edit]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? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources are very precise when describing the black plague.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None noticed.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes
Organization evaluation
[edit]The table of contents provided by many wikipedia articles is a must read in order to understand the organization involved within the article.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media. I don't believe my peer added any images or media.
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, they were already involved.
- 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, very intriguing.
Images and media evaluation
[edit]Perhaps maybe warn readers before clicking the link of what images they may witness...It can be a little graphic.
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]This is not a new article.
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article was already complete.
- What are the strengths of the content added? No.
- How can the content added be improved? Just continue monitoring news relating to the Black Plague.
Overall evaluation
[edit]Doesn't seem to me like the peer provided much of anything except opened the link. The article is already a gem.