User:Stefrreh/Women in Hawaii/Piarriero37 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? Stefrreh
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Women in Hawaii

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes she added more information on the typical Hawaiian women does and looks like and it lead up to who she will discuss.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes she does this within the first paragraph
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes in the beginning of the article there is a brief description of the major sections
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes she added her own information on specific Hawaiian women and descriptions of them, as well as their relevance.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No there is not too much detail.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it describes important women in Hawaii
• Is the content added up-to-date? It seems to be up-to-date because it is information that is factual history and cant change.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There does seem to be more room for information but all the information written does belong.

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? There are any statements that seem heavily biased towards a position.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there are no over or underrepresented view points
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No there is no persuasion

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content is not specifically cited in the paragraphs but there are sources in the references section that seem to be reliable.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they are relevant to the topic and information that she added.
• Are the sources current? Yes roughly within 5 years
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes very concise and clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No I did not catch any errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes all the topics are organized

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes it does
• Are images well-captioned? Yes they include a clear, concise, and accurate description.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes and they are connected to a source.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Perhaps they should be further up, closer to the paragraphs.

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 she has 3 sources.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are two sources from the same cite. There could be more sources and literature that cover this 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? Yes it follows all those guidelines.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes it provides 3 other articles to explore.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It does add more information to make the article more complete. However, I think there might be more information that can be found and added
• What are the strengths of the content added? She added relevant and interesting information that kept me intrigued.
• How can the content added be improved? There can be more information added on the subject to make it more complete and the information must be cited in the text.

Overall evaluation

She did a good job on the information she found and it made me want to know more about what was not said.