From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whose work are you reviewing?
Link to draft you're reviewing:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
The lead is clear, concise, and understandable. 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?
It outlines the general structure of the article, but doesn't outline each of the major sections. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
The lead only contains information that will later be mentioned and covered in the article. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
The lead is concise and to the point. Is the content added relevant to the topic?
The content is relevant to the article topic. Is the content added up-to-date?
The sources cited are good, especially considering the oldest citation is from about 10 or 11 years ago. Good sources and good content. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
The content is relevant to the topic and there isn't any I would suggest removing. Is the content added neutral?
Included content is neutral and factual. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Viewpoints are balanced and unbiased. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
No, the content is justified and factual. Sources and References [ edit ] Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Yes, the content is cited well with good quality sources. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
The sources used are thorough and supportive of the content of the article. Are the sources current?
Yes, the sources used are good quality and recent sources. Check a few links. Do they work?
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
The content was well written, but could use a good proofreading to maintain comprehension and focus on the article topic. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
None, but some rewording could be helpful to make things clear and easy to understand. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Yes, the topic is well structured. 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 [ edit ] Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
Yes, there are credible sources listed. How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
More sources could be helpful. 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?
The article layout and structure is good and standard for a Wikipedia article. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
They linked to existing articles. Overall impressions [ edit ] Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
This would make a great starting point for other users to contribute to. What are the strengths of the content added?
Article was structured in a very legible and coherent way and the content was very informative. How can the content added be improved?
Exploration of the individual sections of the article would be welcome and inclusion of more sources would likely expand the amount of topic coverage.
