User:Kclav15/North Creek High School/Graceyi11 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?

Kclav15

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kclav15/North_Creek_High_School?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead:

I thought it was simple and concise. I think at first glance it would've been nice to add more information the lead paragraph such as the introduction or the basic information portion. like maybe add a sentence about the following content that the article is going to cover. Otherwise, I thought it was great!

Content:

Again, the content was awesome, glad that you added charts of the demographics of the school and the history/construction of the whole school itself. Anyways, everything was well-written and concise.

Tone and Balance:

The tone and balance of the article was solid, I didn't seem to think or come across thinking that it was biased or anything. There were no specific areas of the article where I thought were under or overrepresented.

Sources and References:

Looking over your sources and references, it looks good! It seems like you gained a lot of information from the actual school website which is great!

Organization:

I thought the organization of the information was great. You mentioned the history and construction process of the building in the beginning which was good because it gave us some kind of background information.Then you moved into further information about the student and school life.

Images and Media:

I didn't necessarily think you needed more images to aid the article, I think it was enough with the outer picture of the school, a location graph, and the animal of their school mascot was good.

Overall Impressions:

Honestly, I was really impressed with your article/draft I thought that you truly elevated the information that the previous changes. You added so much additional information, maybe you could add more in depth information in their sports section. Did the school win any competitions or maybe include like stats regarding this school? That's just an idea but otherwise, I thought your drafted article was well written and you definitely made the article better.