User:Ztluce/Cuisine of the Southern United States/Bae rowshay11 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? Ztluce
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ztluce/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. There is more in depth information regarding fried chicken in American than what was in the original article
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? At the moment there are just points that they want to add in and talk about. There was a note about fixing it and putting it into sentences and going into larder depth about those given topics.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there is a paragraph that was in the original article that they brought in to show how they weer going to bring in all the supporting information into the article
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? YES YES YES! There is so much about chicken it blows my mind
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise. There is a good amount of information so that readers will be able to understand the complexity behind this dish and how it differs depending on where someone is in this country.
Lead evaluation: The information that is being added is very relevant and is important to the article. There is a greater history around food that many people do not understand and the information that is being presented for this article will help readers understand what that given history is. Although there is a lot of history behind fired chicken, the information that is being presented is not a crazy amount but highlights the importance that this food has as well as the impact that is has had on certain groups of people.
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is, It goes into depth about the history of fired chicken in America and how it differs depending on the state that someone is in.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it is
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, everything that is being presented will strengthen this article.
Content evaluation: Everything that is presented is related to the topic, is up to date, and there is nothing that does not belong. There is also no missing information or anything that I feel, as a reader, is not being discussed or talked about.
[edit]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: There is no bias with fried chicken and the information that is being presented. Although it is the BEST CHICKEN EVER this article focuses on being neutral about their love for fried chicken.
[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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation: All the sources that I looked at looked very good and like credible sources. There was nothing that stood out as bad or raised a red flag for me.
[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: So far, everything that is in listed bullet point form. I believe that once the information is written out it will be amazing and beautiful.
[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: No media at the moment
[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: Not a new article
[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?