User:Madisonolds98/Goose bumps/Kocurran1123 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? (provide username)
- Madisonolds98
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- No
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- I don't believe the introduction is very representative of the article at all. The article spends a long portion discussing the etymology but that is not reflected in the introduction. One paragraph of the article sounds like it should be one of the body paragraphs and not included in the introduction as it is making claims and relaying facts.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No it does not.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes it develops on some points that are not reflected as much in the article itself.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is overly detailed but also lacks detail on some parts of the article.
Lead evaluation - Good, Its a good lead but I think it could be reshaped to match the article much more
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- I know Madison was having trouble figuring out some of the features of WikiEDU and it is a hard process to understand as well. I am not exactly sure, based on her sandbox, where the information she is adding is and the organization of the review is hard to follow.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- The content added seems to be up to date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- She assessed a lot of the content in the article and it seems as though some sources are missing which she plans to add in.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No this article does not do that.
Content evaluation - Good, I think the etymology needs to be cut down but other than that the article is good.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes is seems so.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- I believe the etymology is way overrepresented and needs to be cut down a lot.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No.
Tone and balance evaluation - The tone and balance are very good, Not much needs to be altered here.
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- No but that is being addressed and added later on.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Well there are statements that are unsourced when they should be so no.
- Are the sources current?
- Yes for the most part.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- No not really.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Some worked, some did not.
Sources and references evaluation - There is a lack in sources that are cited and that is something Madison agrees should be improved.
[edit]Organization
[edit]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?
- Not that I saw.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- No, the organization could be a little more clear and concise.
Organization evaluation - The etymology should be moved but other than that it is well organized.
[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?
- NA
- Are images well-captioned?
- NA
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- NA
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- NA
Images and media evaluation - N/A
[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?
- Yes I believe Madison's additions will add a lot to the quality of the article as right now it is little under-sourced and unorganized.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- I think the adding of sources will help a lot and also the reorganizing.
- How can the content added be improved?
- I think more clearly stating what her additional paragraph will be about will help more.