User:LBollefer/Doris Shadbolt/Cameron Kletke Peer Review

Whose work are you reviewing?

LBollefer : Doris Shadbolt

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:LBollefer/Doris Shadbolt - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
NA

Peer Review:

The Lead of Doris Shadbolt's page is short but concise, referencing her date of birth/death, and career/life. The Lead does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the subject of the article; which is discussing Shadbolt's life and career. It is not overly detailed.

The content is extremely relevant to the topic of Shadbolt, and up to date as the information crosses her life up until her death in 2003.

There are some grammatical errors or additions I would make/change. The sentence " A passionate collector of B.C. ceramics..." could start with; "As a passionate collector of B.C. ceramics, etc.etc."

The second paragraph in the Career section of the article could be moved to be the bottom paragraph, as it references her life in 1975-2000, while the last paragraph talks about her life in the 1950s/1960s. I think that to create a more chronological review of her life, this would be the best way to go about it.

Additionally, a photograph of Doris Shadbolt would be a great incorporation to the page. I admire the Selected Works section of the article, that was a great addition, although some references to the selected works would be helpful to readers.

I've also noticed that there are no sentences that are linked to the citations- this will probably be included in the future. Some of the references also don't explicitly link to websites, but it is noted that most are books or printed works, which makes sense as to why there is no website link.

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?

(provide username)

Link to draft you're reviewing
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)