User:Jbelt21/Keith R. Porter/Morgan3Davis 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?

Jbelt21

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jbelt21/Keith_R._Porter?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Keith R. Porter

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

The lead was updated with a relevant overview of the material that was added to the article. I don't think that the Lead has too much information. It has just enough and doesn't go into too much detail about what will be presented later on in the article.

Content

It appears that all content that was added is relevant to the topic. It is up-to-date and doesn't have any extraneous information that subtracts from the article. This article doesn't necessarily fill any of Wiki's equality gaps in terms of representation, but that's not a bad thing. If possible, it could be nice to add a bit more to the career section.

Tone and Balance

The article is very neutral and doesn't overemphasize any of Keith Porters achievements or awards which could imply bias.

Sources and References

All the sources seem to be reliable from second parties. The reference section is a strange format-- the first few references are numbered and the other half are bulleted. Making these all one format could reduce any confusion the different formatting could cause. Most of the sources are a bit older, but that can be attributed to the fact that Porter died before the turn of the 21st century. I think that using the Scientific American source was a bit confusing considering it wasn't Porter that was awarded the Nobel Prize, but rather his colleagues. The wording in the article doesn't explicitly state that he didn't win which could be a bit confusing. The "Image and Video Library" link in the last bulleted reference does not work.

Organization

The content added is well-written and is free of any grammatical and spelling errors. I really like the organization of the article. It's very easy to follow and it doesn't feel like I'm bogged down sifting through section after section.

Images and Media

N/A -- no images

Overall Impressions

The article is definitely more complete now. I think with the limited articles available on the web about Porter, the editor did a great job in including as much information as possible without rambling to fill space. Strengths-- it can be hard to keep a neutral tone, but this article did a great job at remaining neutral throughout the whole length of the paper. It was organized in a way that was easy to follow and used mostly appropriate sources. Possible improvements-- using an article other than the Scientific American article or explicitly mentioning that Porter did not win the Nobel Prize could be helpful. Going back to check the links to make sure all of them are working properly and formatting all references in the reference section the same way could also lead to some improvement in the overall strength of the article.