User:RosasD4600/University of Houston Army ROTC/Catherine G Hernandez 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? RosasD4600
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:RosasD4600/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- No
Lead evaluation: Needs to be added
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Content missing, being added
Content evaluation: Off to a good start
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
- 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: Good at staying factual
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- No
- 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?
- Yes
Sources and references evaluation: Good start with sources, but need to add more, especially to history section
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, but some sentences could be broken up to increase readability
- 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
Organization evaluation:Good start, work on breaking down material into smaller sentences so it's easier to read
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]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?
- Not yet, but it will once sources are added
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- Only one source, definitely need more
- 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
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- no
New Article Evaluation:Good foundation, but the article needs more sources and variety of links
[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
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Good at staying factual, good organization, good variety of information
- How can the content added be improved?
- add more content, add more sources, add relevant links