User:Yuli.chavez56/2010 Oaxaca earthquake/Cmccoy0913 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?

Yuli.chavez56

Link to draft you're reviewing
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): 2010 Oaxaca earthquake

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead Paragraph
your lead paragraph provides good information, but I feel like it could use more. Maybe you could find some more important information surrounding the earthquake that could be valuable enough to put in the lead paragraph

Tone and Balance

your tone is neutral, and doesn't seem to lead the reader to any conclusions, which is good

Images and Media

The Image you have is a good indicator of where the earthquake happened, and i think it is a good visual. I think it might be a good idea to also add some images of the aftermath of the earthquake, as this could help the reader get a better idea of the level of destruction that occurred as a result of the earthquake.

Other Thoughts

I think the main spot where your article could use some improvement is through the addition of more sections to the article. As it stands, you only have a lead section and a small section with some links to related topics. As a result, your article ends up seeming a bit short and barren. I think would be a nice idea to add a few new sections. These new sections could be about things like a deeper dive into the destruction and aftermath of the earthquake. You could maybe find information about how the earthquake affected the economy or if it had any long lasting effects on the infrastructure of Mexico City. I also think you could have a section that goes into detail about the specific tectonic activity that caused the earthquake. There could be alot of interesting scientific information on this topic that could be great to have in your article. I think one more good addition to your article could be a history of earthquakes in the area. You could talk about other big earthquakes in the past in Mexico city, and how they compare to the one your article is about.