User:Chemistry Pink Lady/Carolyn R. Bertozzi/Blacksheep109 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? (provide username)
- Chemistry Pink Lady
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, flows better
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes great lead into the article
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- All sections are referenced in some manner
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- A few details that are useful to be left in
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Yes, makes it clearer
Lead evaluation
[edit]I noticed your contributions and thought they were useful and made things clearer.
Content
[edit]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
[edit]I though the content added cleared up some points that could have been linked, but overall guided the reader better.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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
[edit]I felt that the tone was unbiased. One thing to consider I saw one someone else was that they changed gender pronouns to the last name, which could make the article even further unbiased.
Sources and References
[edit]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
[edit]Added some sources from 2020 which keeps the information relevant and up-to-date! Checked a few links that appear to be working fine.
Organization
[edit]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
[edit]The sections are clear and the headers were relevant to the information following.
Images and Media
[edit]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
[edit]None yet, but I assume they will be added soon.
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]n/a
Overall impressions
[edit]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
[edit]I think the content overall makes the article easier to read and follow. Consider adding a few more changes to the wording to ensure unbiased wording. I think you are off to a great start, but continue to look if there are any more possible -fasts to add.