User:ITBillet/Deaf culture/education/Blanchard89 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? (Izzy Billet; ITBillet)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Deaf culture

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: social beliefs, behaviors, art, literary traditions, history, values, and shared institutions of communities
• 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 concise but has a great amount of information.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date? yes, they have added up-to date information.
• 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? Yes for the most part.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? A negative outlook on institutions.
• 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, instead it gives insight about deaf culture.

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? Some are old but most are current.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, it seems that the authors could be writing about themselves.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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? No.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes and videos.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes all of them.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes, it lists a lot of sources.
• 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 it is very organized with section headings.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes at the end.

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? Great, very beneficial and insightful information.
• How can the content added be improved? Possibly a conclusion to tie everything in, or any kind of connections.