User:Phchan1/Acculturation/Zjm648003854 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? (provide username)
  • Phchan1
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Acculturation&type=revision&diff=956019153&oldid=956017655

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it does.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it doesn't.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No, it isn't.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant. The content is about Mexican American students having to assimilate, which is the general topic of the Wikipedia content page.
• Is the content added up-to-date? It is from a source that was written in 2019, yes it is considered up-to-date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content makes sense as connected to the topic.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content tone is neutral. There is no positive tone or hostility that can be noticed.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are not claims. The information that was added instead serves as evidence to prove the assimilation still exists today and to compare two different Hispanic groups.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is only one type of population discussed, it is overrepresented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No there is no techniques of persuasion, if anything, it is very neutral.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are websites that back up each statement added.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources could have been more through. They come from online sources that are not peer reviewed.
• Are the sources current? The one source that was used is from 2017.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the link opens when I click on it.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There are a lot of words that are hard to understand. It is wordy and formal.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Although wordy and written in a formal tone, there are no grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There isn’t enough information for me to notice if it has been broken down into sections.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media There were no images added.

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. This article was not new, merely an extension.

• 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? There was not enough content for their to be an improvement of the overall article.
• What are the strengths of the content added? There is now more evidence and a new reference that will make the page more valid.
• How can the content added be improved? More detailed information should be added. There is not enough information to give an adequate review of quality.