User:Winnie54/2016 NCAA Division I Women's Golf Championship/Caroliner6 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
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 for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Winnie54

Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft Reviewed
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Current Version

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hi Winnie!

I enjoyed reading this article about the NCAA Division I Women’s golf Championship! I copy-edited the content and made direct revisions for a few grammatical errors or typos I came across. Below I included comments on each section, referencing the peer review template form WikiEdu.

Lead:

The first paragraph of the lead offers good insight into what sections the article will include.
The second paragraph seems to introduce content that is not further discussed later in the article. I am curious if there is additional history behind this that could be discussed later in the article.

Content:

In the regional qualifying tournaments, I tried to edit the last bullet point because I think there are some grammatical errors. I just wanted to draw attention that specific copy-edit to ensure I didn’t change the message of the point too much.
The venue section feels slightly brief, but that might be because there really isn’t that much more to add so I am not sure. How do they choose the venue for the tournament? Is the golf course notable in any way?
The format section could include more context. While it is helpful to link to the 2015 NCAA Division I Women’s Golf Championship for reference, it could be useful to include a few sentences in this article about what the format looks like.

Tone and Balance:

The tone of the paper is neutral. While the venue and format sections are brief, the other sections feel balanced.

Sources:

The article is supported by reliable sources and includes some in-text citations. The regional qualifying tournaments, venue, and format sections could include in-text citations to strengthen the content in those sections.

Let me know if you have any questions about any of the comments I left. I look forward to reading the article again!

Reply Winnie54 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Caroline!

Thank you so much for reading it and giving essential feedback! I will definitely work on the venue and format section. I will also provide in-text citation for the missing sections!