Jump to content

User:Fronado/Rucker House (Everett, Washington)/Brynlangrock Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Yes, the introductory sentence in the lead is very concise and covers the article's topic well.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • Yes, the lead briefly mentions part of each section.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • No, the Lead is a great preview into the rest of the article.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • The lead is very concise.

Lead evaluation[edit]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, everything added is very relevant. The only thing I could think of would be to add if there's information on the estates current value.
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? 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]

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
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • The one link does work

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? Everything is very concise and easy to read
  • 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]

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
  • Are images well-captioned? Yes, both images are well and relevantly captioned
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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, the content of the article has been improved tremendously, adding sections of history, architecture and location, and expanding on the lead.
  • What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is all relevant information that was missing from the original article.
  • How can the content added be improved? I would possibly add any information about the current value of the estate if available online anywhere. Also some more pictures or different views of the property could be beneficial.

Overall evaluation[edit]