User:XAgememnonX/Verginia/Tjna57 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? XAgememnonX
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:XAgememnonX/Verginia
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? Consider adding a phrase in the lead section that outlines Verginia's appearance in literature.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise.
Lead evaluation: The lead section is very concise while still being informative. However, perhaps consider adding a bit more detail, so that the reader can have a bit more insight into the figure of Verginia before reading her story.
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that does not belong, but the article might benefit from additional sections on Verginia's early life (if information of this is available) and/or Verginia's portrayal in art.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Content evaluation: Consider adding a few more sections on Verginia (art, early life, consequences of death, etc.)
[edit]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: The content is neutral and informative.
[edit]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?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation: The article has a good variety of sources, but might benefit from an additional contemporary source.
[edit]Organization
[edit]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?
Organization evaluation: The editor has done a great job creating sections and an overall organization. However, the article might benefit from a few additional sections to break up the major points of the topic (see content evaluation for more info). Additionally, consider removing Verginia's name from the headers (i.e. change to "References in Literature" etc)
[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?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Images and media evaluation: Images are well-chosen and presented. Consider adding more detail to their captions (artist, date, etc.)
[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?
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?