User:Pfowler17/Reflective writing/Kerrymonique 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? (Pflowler17)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pfowler17/Reflective writing

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not as of yet
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead seems a little jumble. The wording in not neutral and needs a more balanced tone that is not leading the reader toward what the writer thinks about a reflective essay.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead description is too long
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly detailed but given the fact the author is not finished editing the article

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic
• Is the content added up-to-date? The references are from 2017 and 2019 are up to date
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It looks like the author is still adding content to the article. As of today the article seems to missing content

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? The content is a little misleading so I'm not sure about its neutrality. The sentence in the about the focus on writing seems scrambled. I think we are not supposed to list studies on Wikipedia?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, the content lists studies that show bias in the section listed as "Uses."
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The view points of the study done are overrespresented
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes, it seems the author is using studies to show favor

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Secondary sources are missing
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough
• Are the sources current? The sources are current
• Check a few links. Do they work? The link Wegner Lisa works but the source looks poor

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is not well written. However, the writer is not finished editing the article
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find any errors in the spelling
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is not organized it needs a lot of work
• organization evaluation - This article needs more work

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, images included
• Are images well-captioned? No
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable

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? This article is a stub and needs more supportive sources
• 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 info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? This article is a work in progress and needs all listed
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The article does not list to any other articles

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No
• What are the strengths of the content added? The content is weak and needs supportive information
• How can the content added be improved? The article is at the beginning stages so it needs a lot more content, references and links.

Overall evaluation

The article needs more work. I believe the author is still working on editing this article!