User:DerekE9831/Trevor David Rhone/MachInX19 Peer Review
Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
Additional ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Team Trevor Rhone
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:DerekE9831/Trevor David Rhone
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
Lead
The Lead paragraph is good. It introduces Trevor, and his achievements. It's short and to-the-point as well.
Content
The content here is good. the article is fairly relevant, and it all flows together.
Tone and Balance
I don't feel any bias coming from this article. It's well-written and neutral. The one thing I'd say is the furthest from this standpoint is when Rhone credits his passion to his High School days, but that doesn't matter much in this context. Everything here is fine.
Sources and References
These sources aren't bad. They reflect the articles decently but maybe spread your references out. I noticed that your first two sources, the APS and RPI articles, are used a lot in this article. Not saying it's a bad thing, but maybe add more from your other sources. Aside from that, your article looks good in this regard. While they're older, the sources used for Rhone's Family are fine for their purposes. Everything else looks up-to-date.
Organization
Your Article is quick, clean, and to the point. Everything is presented clearly, and the sections are easy to understand. The Article seems alright in terms of Grammar also.
Overall Impressions
This Article is nice and informative. Everything is relevant and up-to-date, but you should add more from your sources. Like I said earlier, your first two sources are used quite a bit compared to, say, your 5th and 6th sources. That is the only 'issue' I see from the article. Aside from that it's a solid work.