User:Yx5941411/Lars Krutak/JoseDeLopez10 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)

Im reviewing : Yx5941411

• Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Yx5941411/Lars Krutak

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead is not a main focus on this article from the classmate. It's an add up of the Anthropologist's Wikipedia page. Classmate focus more on Work, and Purpose of the tattoos.

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the Tattoo Anthropologist has already a Wikipedia page but here the classmate is laying towards the types of tattoos, research and purpose of tattoos which is a good add up to the his page.

• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Not exactly major sections. For me they are like subsections of the "Work" section.

• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Not really because the classmate information is more like an add up of the Anthropologist main Wikipedia page.

• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Here is more toward content than the lead section so I'll say no.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Definitely. The information is towards the Anthropologist type of work and intention toward the body modification. Giving context of an ancient type of tattoo.

• Is the content added up-to-date?

This is a good question because I can't tell. The classmate didn't had any references listed. I can't tell if the content is up to date.

• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

So far looks solid. Need more organization and a better structure so its easier to the viewer to read and classify what's the information the peer wants to provide. I'll try to summarize it and make it a bit simple to read. Users to add for main information and key point not exactly whole text.

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

Yes. I think it belongs to the individual's work and journey of his work. It address some topics of his journey and intentions behind his research towards the community and the reason behind communities on tattooing. More than an topy of art he tries to show the cultural bond of the tattoos.

Content evaluation

I'll say overall is good. There is a lot room for improvement breaking it down and resources. Add link to your content so people can read even more about some terms that they don't even know.

7/10

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?

Yes. It's giving mostly information and context of the Anthropologist life doing his work.

• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Not at all. Seems pretty balanced.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Not really. Seems in the right place. Overall good consistency

• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No. Its mostly about his research and and to give context about the study of the tattoos. Not exactly motivating or pursuing anybody to get/ avoid one. The article talks more about a way of cultural meaning and bring knowledge about this art.

Tone and balance evaluation

So far solid in this section

9/10

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Not at all. This is really important. Add please all your resources.

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

No.

• Are the sources current?

I wouldn't tell you.

• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Not listed yet

• Check a few links. Do they work?

Not listed yet

Sources and references evaluation

Need some work on this section

0//10

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Content seems really interesting but need some time to read. I'll try to condense it and make it simple to the viewer to read. You can improve on this section.

• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

It looks solid to me. Not Gramatical error so far.

• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

It can be improved. It's broken down by sections however is kind of hard to read and classify.

Organization evaluation

Need some improvement but in the right track

8/10

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

N/A

• Are images well-captioned?

N/A

• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

N/A

• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

N/A

Images and media evaluation

N/A

For New Articles Only

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?

It's not a New article but could add some new sources.

• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

No sources yet listed.

• 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?

Not really. Need some improvement on structure it to add up to the existing article.

• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

No. I'll suggest add link to the article so people who has no idea of terms or context have an idea.

New Article Evaluation

Not a new article but can add up heavily on the main article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Good so far. It's a draft so needs some improvements. It can turn out really good.

• What are the strengths of the content added?

Information.

• How can the content added be improved?

Adding external links, Adding resources, Proper structure of content, Pictures if possible regarding specific tattoos he researched.

Overall evaluation

On the right track and have room for improvement.

7/10