User:Larsonrc/Conceptual metaphor/Mmicah55 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? larsonrc alimontavon
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Alimontavon/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The original lead even goes as far to only mention the specific work by Lakoff (even though the article mentions thinkers from Aristotle to Foucalt). The Pinker work discussed in the later section, however is not mentioned (should all of the thinkers referenced be included in the lead?)
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead goes into detail about an example of conceptual metaphor (which could be left to the article body) but it does not mention things that will be included in later sections (like those listed in the contents)
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the part about ARGUMENT IS WAR should probably be moved to somewhere else in the article, however.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise in the definition, but too detailed overall. Should the part about ARGUEMENT IS WAR be included here?

Lead evaluation

Good, consider concision.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, 2007
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, this section seems straightforward and concise.

Content evaluation

Great, maybe this could be where you mention the ARGUMENT IS WAR part and not in the lead.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes. ("useful (remove) classifications for the study of conceptual metaphor")
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Overall no
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Conceptual metaphor was not talked about in this way in the original article, this does well to balance the content.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not really

Tone and balance evaluation

Great

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, Pinker The Stuff of Thought (2007)
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes (are there other books/articles on these theories of metaphor?)
• Are the sources current? Yes, 2007
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Great

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the new section is very easy to read, well written
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, especially when explaining the theories and giving examples

Organization evaluation

Excellent

Images and Media (N/A)

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 (N/A)

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?
• 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? Yes, the content added makes the article more complete and the topic more understandable. The editions to the rest of the article also help the correct diction and eliminate bias.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Well-written, organized, up to date
• How can the content added be improved? If there are more articles on this topic that could possibly help if certain theories can be further hashed out (obviously not too much, but if need be).

Overall evaluation

Excellent!