User:Langfordchaz168/STAB/Tubbsofsteel Peer Review
< User:Langfordchaz168 | STAB
Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Langfordchaz168
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Langfordchaz168/STAB
Lead[edit]
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?
Lead evaluation[edit]
I think the writer wrote leads that accurately reflected the topics discussed, and I believe all the introductory sentences are quite good. I like that the leads are concise and get straight to the point.
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I think it is quite relevant to the topic.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the sources used are relevant.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there can be more writing done on the projects that STAB did to get a clearer understanding of what their goals were but overall most of the content is good.
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes, most of the content covered is neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there isn't.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think most viewpoints are equally represented but there could be more written on how the Russian people viewed the group if possible.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I did not see any.
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
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? The sources uses reflect the content well.
- Are the sources current? Yes, they are.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is, no complains.
- 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[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The articles presented did have images that showed relevant visual info.
- Are images well-captioned? No images were presented.
- 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[edit]
For New Articles Only[edit]
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? Yes, it does.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is only a few sources but I believe the writer will add more later on, but all the sources accurately represent the information.
- 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? Yes.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes it does.
New Article Evaluation[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes I think the content added increased the quality of the article but I feel more should be added later on for more detailed explanations.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The content added gives good insight into the topics the person was assigned towards.
- How can the content added be improved? Perhaps more detailed explanations.