User:Yairelizvg/Fresh food/Jevega2001 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]- Yairelizvg
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Fresh food
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?
- 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?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead in the article has an acceptable introductory sentences, however you need to obtain those sentences and make it as your own. Evaluate more those sentences y add little more information too.
Content
[edit]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?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content seeing on your article seems very relevant on the topic added. It appears that you need to add a little more content that has a more relevant topic to be able to add up more logic information about your article. The content is the key to find valuable information for your topic.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Based on the article, the seems very neutral the information that is added. Is not heavily based on one particular position, but its viewpoints are a little underrepresented. Adding more content and references would be able to catch you to a more reasonable article.
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
[edit]You need to work more on those references. The references that are added in the article, but are not very precise with the information your gathering. Ive looked at the link and some of its sources are not particularly about the article that you are trying to complete. Look for more sources that focus more on the article that is about and its origins.
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
[edit]It has a well written article and does not seem to have any grammatical errors on the process. Its content is very clear, easy to read and reflect a well organization on each section that were added to the 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?
- 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
[edit]The article itself does not have any imagery. Is recommendable to have a least one image to recognized more about what you are talking in the article.
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?