User:Anjsan01/Milk frother/Sabmarriie 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

Whose work are you reviewing?

Anjsan01

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anjsan01/Milk_frother?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Milk frother

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead - Two leads have been added to start the new content. The first lead includes a brief introduction of what it entails it will talk about. The lead does contain information that is not present from the current version, such as how milk is able to thicken. The second lead also contains information that is not present from the current version, such as the different types of milk and how frothing affects that type of milk. Each include good amount of description. The lead is quick and easy and gets to the point.

Content - The content added is relevant to the topic. The content is up to date. I will say, in the section "How It Works," when you talk about the difference between whole milk and skim milk, it makes sense to put that information in "Types of Frothed Milk" because then it brings question to about different types of milk. Otherwise, the information about the proteins that milk contains and how it is affected by the milk frother. One thing that is missing is would probably including which milk is most popularly used. There are also milks that were not mentioned, such as: coconut milk or cashew milk. Also what about the difference between cold and hot milk, and how does it impact the froth? Otherwise, the content is great and gives the reader a wide perspective of different types of milks to look forward.

Tone and Balance - The content that is added is in a neutral tone. The content does not appear to try to convince the reader towards a particular position.

Sources and References - All content that was added is backed up by sources. The content does reflect on what the sources say. The links work.The sources that were provided reflect the literature. Two articles that were added are current and up to date, but the 7th article does not have the date that it was published. Majority of the authors in the sources are avid coffee drinkers and seems to know what they are talking about. The sources that were used are pretty good. Although, there are some websites that also talk about the difference between cold and hot milk. There aren't a lot of historical and concrete articles for milk frothers, so this is a good start.

Organization - The content is well-written and clear. Words, such as Casein, are explained to help readers understand what it is. I would say, instead of starting with the word "because," I would say "due to.."

Images and Media - Did not add image or media.