User:Aammyllee/Pamela Goldsmith-Jones/Marchnonreal Peer Review
Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing? Aammyllee
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Aammyllee/Pamela Goldsmith-Jones
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes. Various links from 2019 sources.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes. There's a clear introduction statement.
- 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?
- Yes. A lot of recent engagements.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The detail is consistent.
Lead evaluation[edit]
5/5
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes. All content relates to Pamela Goldsmith-Jones
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- All of the references for everything discussed was from the last couple of years.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- All of the content belongs, although there could be more detail to what she's involved in today
Content evaluation[edit]
5/5
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Mostly, yes.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
5/5
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes
- 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
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
5/5
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes
Organization evaluation[edit]
5/5
Images and Media[edit]
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No
- Are images well-captioned?
- N/A
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- N/A
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- N/A
Images and media evaluation[edit]
0/0
For New Articles Only[edit]
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?
New Article Evaluation[edit]
0/0
Overall impressions[edit]
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?
- More rigid accounts of her political involvement.
- How can the content added be improved?
- More inclusive information and more coverage on her new lifestyle independent of her political background.
Overall evaluation[edit]
25/25