User:Stephaniegrisolia/Ghosting (relationships)/Ramen.01 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? (User:Stephaniegrisolia)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Stephaniegrisolia/Ghosting (relationships)

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead seem overly detailed, as it looks like there are two paragraphs for lead section and it doesn't have an introduction to the topic in the beginning but with a brief description of the article's major sections. In my opinion, just moving the second paragraph to the beginning of the lead section could make it look more organized, and thus give the reader an introduction to the topic first.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date as they are all from after 2015.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added is neutral and explains with clear description that don't appear biased in a particular position. All viewpoints are fairly represented.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The sources for the content used do reflect the available literature on the topic, and they are all from the recent years (2015 to 2020). All links seem to work as they redirected me to the accurate and accessible sources upon clicking.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The content added is clear and easy to read with proper use of grammar and spelling. The content added is broken down into sections with proper heading that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• 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?

Images and media evaluation

The article include an image that enhance understanding of the topic by giving an visual idea of what the article is about. The image provide adequate caption and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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?
• 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?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?