User:Hannahmcfadden/Speech-language pathology/CarsonJones06 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?

Hannahmcfadden

Link to draft you're reviewing: [1]
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Speech–language pathology

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead Section:

While Hannah has not added the material that she added to other sections to the lead section. It already has a good introductory sentence and summarizes the article well. The lead section is not overly detailed.

Content:

The content that Hannah has added is very relevant to the topic in giving more detail and perspective of the speech pathologists in the disability sidebar and explaining their role in speech-language pathology. While also including more details on their profession and the important role they play in helping people who are struggling to communicate in various forms. She also provides important information about the assessment procedure that Speech pathologists go through in identifying what would be best for kids that are struggling with speech-language issues. The content is up to date. I do think Hannah would benefit from adding information about speech-language pathology in different cultures and other places not privileged by western civilization to provide more of a broad global perspective. I know the information might not be out there with reliable sources, but it would strengthen the article and address an equity gap.

Tone and Balance:

Hannah does a great job at keeping a neutral tone that does not have any claims that are favored to one opinion over another. She does not try to persuade the reader; she does a great job at abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines with the content she has added.

Sources:

Her sources are great secondary sources that transcribe the information she has added. The sources are current and relevant to her added content. The authors are diverse from looking at their information presented, and the topics covered. I do think she would benefit from adding sources that talk about speech-language problems in other cultures. The links work.

Organization:

Content is added in the right places and added more details to the sections she has helped elaborate on. There does not seem to be grammatical or spelling errors. Content she has added is well organized and placed in the right sections and the right places to help expand this article.

Overall Impressions:

Hannah's contributions have added valuable detail and information to this page in expanding on the role speech-language pathologists play in kids that struggle with language and communication issues. The strengths of this article are the relevant sources and content she has added to this page and her ability to be neutral in her content she has added. Improvements include just adding more information to the sections that are lacking (like the research section), I also think adding information addressing Wikipedia's equity gaps (if the reliable information is out there) would benefit her contributions and the article itself. Maybe some details in the lead section.