User:CampbellParsons/Apple Arcade/Annyamariee 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? Campbell Parsons
- Link to draft you're reviewing:Apple Arcade
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -No not yet, a few details in the sand box has not been included
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?- Yes there is an introductory sentence. T
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -Yes the article describes major sections and key points/To improve the lead summary of major sections, more details could be included rather than just bullet points.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -No it does not
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? -The lead is concise and straight to the point of the article
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?-Yes the content added is relevant to this topic, the added resources talk directly about apples and arcades
- Is the content added up-to-date?-The content added is up to date, both articles are written in 2019
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that is missing or that is irrelvant
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes that content is neutral
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No biases are present
- 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
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? "Up to six family members are allowed access through family sharing". needs to be sourced
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
- Are the sources current? yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? all the links work
Sources and references evaluation
[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
[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? not yet
- Are images well-captioned? not yet
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? not yet
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? not yet
Images and media evaluation
[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
[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?