User:Ijustinns/Group threat theory/Gaoy53 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Ijustinns
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ijustinns/Group threat theory

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and clear.

Lead evaluation

The lead provides a concise and straightforward definition to describe the subject, and at the same time, it introduces the major sections that are covered in the article. However, some information from the lead paragraph, including studies that do not support or are contrary to the theory, is not present in the body of the article. Therefore, the information should be added to the article or removed from the introduction to improve clarity. Overall, the lead is not overly detailed and easy to understand for all kinds of audiences.

Content

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? Yes.

Content evaluation

Currently, the content added is relevant to the topic, which discusses the origin of the subject with information coming from up-to-date sources. However, it looks like that the article is not finished yet, and the author is planning on adding additional information. I would like to see details that are briefly introduced in the lead. Beyond that, it would be interesting to read about specific research, the evolvement of the theory, and its application in different fields. These are potential information to be included in the content, and I think that by highlighting them, the author can demonstrate the notability of the article as well.

Tone and Balance

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

The author maintains the neutrality of this article well because the content is balanced. The information is reported to inform the audience, rather than persuading. Although the article mentions both research that supports the group threat theory and those that do not support it. The author does not take a stance and merely presents the background information available. I hope to see more details about the research in order to better understand the subject.

Sources and References

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? No.
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

When I check on the links of references, all of them work, and many of them come from academic sources and are peer-reviewed journals from recent years, which enhance the credibility of the article. One possible improvement is that most of the sources cover the research and phenomenon that support and legitimize the group threat theory. Limited sources discuss the opposite point of view and corresponding evidence.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
• 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

Since this article is still a work in progress, it is hard to evaluate the organization of it accurately. Based on what is available, I think that the author does a great job using headings and subtitles to distinguish sections of different topics. This is important because it helps to highlight the structure of the article, main sections, and important information. Also, the information box makes it clear what the main sections are.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
• Are images well-captioned? No.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

The author did not add any images, and the picture that was originally on the article page does not capture the theme of the subject very well. I suggest that the author can look for pictures from research related to the subject if possible.

For New Articles Only

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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Not very complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Clarity and neutrality.
• How can the content added be improved? More content.

Overall evaluation

Overall, this article clearly articulates the meaning of its subject. It is easy to understand for the audience and maintain a neutral tone. However, some improvements that can be made is to add more content in order to present the subject in greater detail. There are many potential perspectives related to the group threat theory, so I suggest the author discovering new sources and integrating more information to enhance the comprehensiveness of the article.