User:Alank202/Micromégas/Nestorthemidwaycat Peer Review
Appearance
< User:Alank202 | Micromégas
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? Alank202
- Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alank202/Microm%C3%A9gas/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography
- User:Alank202/sandbox
(note: I just found that the draft is in his personal sandbox and not the link provided, so I will update accordingly with more peer review tomorrow (12:39am 11/10/2020)
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- not yet
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, because I believe Alan plans to add things about critical analysis about it
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no because the sections do not exist
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes, there's some info about a technique that Micromegas uses that other authors of the time used that isn't really in the rest of the article as of yet.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It's pretty concise but in a not great way and could have another sentence or something aboyt why it is "a significant development in the history of literature"
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes! There are two new sections: 1 about its publication and the other about the influence of Lucien
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Seems to be !
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I have not read the novella so I cannot comment on its veritit but I think everything looks up to sort.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- I would say: no.
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Looks fairly neutral but nothing was added
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- there are no claims.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- well, there is only content from the story, so everything else is underrepresented
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- Don't think so as it is just a plot evaluation.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes! There seem to be three new sources.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- There are only three sources in the bib, so I would say no to that question as there are for sure more than three sources out there on the internet.
- Are the sources current?
- Current as in written in the latter half of the 20th century, but there is no sources written after 1985-- so at minimum the sources are over 30 years old.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- There's one source written by a woman
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- The only link added works! And is a good source.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- I'll talk about the content already there: it honestly could be written better-- like I'm not a real writer but I think I could do a better job writing this article than what is currently there and thus I think that Alan can beef up the prose as well! The new content is very well written!
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- nothing major but stylistic-wise it is pretty sad. (alan's stuff is a-ok :) )
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes-- it seems to be going that way everything looks swell.
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
there are no images at the moment
- 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
[edit]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]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes-- for sure! critical analysis is already good
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- secondary sources add other viewpoints making a more rounded article
- How can the content added be improved?
- maybe some references in other literature / popular culture could be added?