User talk:Aajoseph12/Online disinhibition effect
Hello Aajoseph12, for your article about Online Disinhibition effect, I conducted a peer review for it. Incase you cannot see my comments, here are my notes from your peer review. Good luck! General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Aajoseph12 Link to draft you're reviewing: Online disinhibition effect Lead Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes 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? Yes Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise and to the point. Lead evaluation I think the Lead in this article is strong and presents the main points of the article in a precise way without being too detailed. It doesn't include any information that is not in the rest of the article, which is great.
Content 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? No Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes Content evaluation I think your content is very strong and relavent to the briefing given in your Lead before.
Tone and Balance 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 Some of the biggest strengths of this article are how unbiased all of its statements are, and how none of the viewpoints in all the section are too overrepresented.
Sources and References Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation All of the links work and are from a good range of authors. The authors of the sources are diverse too.
Organization Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes Organization evaluation The organization of this article is its greatest strength in my opinion. Everything is clear and easy to follow, and there are no spelling errors.
Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No 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 No images have been added to this article to support any of its topics. Perhaps some images can be added in this article's classification section.
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? Yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Very Exhaustive. 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? Yes Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes New Article Evaluation The article has an exhaustive list of references which accurately represent all available literature on the subject. It also links other articles to increase its discoverability.
Overall impressions Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Overall evaluation The content of this article is precise and complete. The strengths of this is its organization and unbiased statements. The content added can be improved by providing supporting images in the classifications section to support the statements in that part.
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Aajoseph12/Online disinhibition effect" page.
