User:2k415/Youth activism/Klementine2000 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)
  • 2k415, Bais20, Dns2018
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:2k415/Youth activism

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 original roadmap looks good but it might be useful to keep an eye on bias or opinion even when supported by sources. Mainly I saw this from the brief mention about young people being discouraged because of adults and mainstream groups. I don't think it is a problem right now but just be sure that if you discuss those areas you keep it as neutral and factual as possible to avoid wiki issues. The groups changes to the lead are great and seem to do a good job of doing this so other than considering making a few more changes to the original I don't see any major issues here. I think the new definition and information your group provides is really good and definitely helps keep it concise and clear. I do think it would be useful to tie technology into the lead section a little bit since the addition of that section your group is making is quite large.

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

I really like the way that your group broke down the technology section into different platforms, it does a really great job of outlining important areas of activism and describing the different ways those platforms are used. The sources seem to be up-to-date and well used in the article so nothing feels like its disconnected too much. I would say that there might be space here to look more into Instagram and Youtube more because they information there less detailed or relevant than from the twitter one, this might just be an issue of being able to find acceptable works that discuss the topic you want to cite but if there is more out there I think it would be great to include it!

The 21st century and North America sections look great too, the section about Matias Ramos is a great addition as is the additional information about the U.S

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

From what I can see so far of your groups additions everything look neutral and pretty good, I do think maintaining that and making sure you aren't being percieved as favoring one group too much is something to keep an eye on but it doesn't look like its something your section is struggling with too much. It does seem like something that might need to be cleaned up a bit in the original Lead and some introductory sections though. The writing in some of the introductions to new sections also seem a bit flowery and more designed to focus on the power or strength of online engagement, this might not be an issue for your group but it might help to check up on articles of similar topics because I can see this being a problem for my own page.

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

All the sources seem good and meet up with the wiki expectations. I think you might find a problem with some of the news editorial works just because a lot of work in that style is very biased to one side and this may be an issue for wiki editors.That being said, the information your group seems to be using from these kind of sources avoids this really well and does a good job of providing an impartial explanation. Your group has a good balance of academic works and news based articles and everything seem to be up to date.

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 information is very well broken down and the new subsections your group added really help to make everything seem clear and well described. I didn't catch any major grammar or spelling issues from reading it and I think your group balances formal and academic language with accessibility really well so I don't think there is too much to worry about as far as organization is concerned

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

There aren't any images in the article additions

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?

Overall evaluation

Overall I think the additional sections your group is adding are very strong and provide a lot of new information I didn't see in the original article. Your writing and the information you guys provide is really clear and well thought out and it does a good job of following the format and concepts already included in the current article. I think the only major areas to keep an eye on are neutrality in the Lead, mainly considering additional changes to the original and adding images. It could also help to check in on how viable some news articles are if they are providing an opinion on youth activism. It looks great so far though and I didn't see any big issues with your work!