User:Alwayh/Fly Biting/SwallowInTheTrees 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:

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?

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Alwayh

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alwayh/Fly_Biting?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Does not exist

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

This article is excellent actually. I think the amount of information presented is adequate and appropriate for Wikipedia. The tone is good, the sentences are clear and the sections are concise. I think the article needs to exist. A quick google search proves that this phenomena is notable, there just isn't a Wikipedia page on it yet. This is a very good start to an article that others can build on. I think it would benefit from more recent sources, but for what you have so far I believe your references are adequate.

There are a couple of nitpicks that I imagine you're going to address in the final version of the article, but regardless, here they are:

-If the article as a whole was bigger, there is some stuff in the intro that should probably go under a "Characteristics" section or something like it. However, as the article stands, the lead section works well.

-Use American spelling for stuff like behavior (as opposed to behaviour like you've written). I don't like it either, but Wikipedia does it that way and I think standardization is good in general.

-Link to other Wikipedia articles whenever you have things that have articles of their own (I also didn't do this in my draft, I'm just putting it here in case).

-Maybe I see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia more than I should, but I find phrases like "one study found" shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. I know it's something we do a lot in the sciences, I just find that it doesn't fit. These articles should be a synthesis, not necessarily a repertoire of studies and individual findings. I know you only do this like once, but I figured I'd include it because I really don't have much else to say about your article.

-If you could find one that is free use and to the point, I think a short video clip would help the article a lot, but it is not necessary by any means.

Again, this article is good.