User:That1equestrian/Interscholastic Equestrian Association/Noelle.mannen 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)
  • That1equestrian
• Link to draft you're reviewing: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:That1equestrian/sandbox#Points_and_Postseason_competition http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:That1equestrian/sandbox#Points_and_Postseason_competition

Lead

Guiding questions:

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

Content

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?
  • I think that all the information seems to be relevant to me, and I do not know for sure, but the article seems a little short so I feel like perhaps there could be more detail addes somewhere at some point, but like I said, I do not know that for sure.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, she does a great job of maintaining neutrality throughout the article.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The "Dressage" section appears a little short compared to the other two sections, so perhaps it is a little bit underrepresented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, there are three reliable sources used to back up the information.
• 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

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, it is great.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I could not find any during my reading of the article.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, the organization is great.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes, there is one image that adds to it.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes

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
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • Three so far, which is a great start for a rough draft!
• 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?
  • Yes

Overall impressions

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?
  • I believe that this article has been written from scratch, and I think this is such a great start for this article. The information is clear, concise, and gets the main message across. I can say this especially since I do not know much about the IEA.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • I think that more information needs to be added about what postseason competition actually looks like. You refer to postseason competition multiple times and how riders can get there, but you don't really share much about what this "postseason" really is.