User:Leolsz/Alternative hypothesis/Shg7D1 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?

Leolz

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

Evaluate the drafted changes

The biggest shortcomings that I see with this article are issues with grammar, clarity, a lack of examples, and a lack of citations. Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

There are a number of grammatical and clarity errors in the lead.
- The first sentence is both unclear and grammatically incorrect. "a position that states something is happening" is both inaccurate and unclear, and the alternative hypothesis is not necessarily "preferred" over the original hypothesis (e.g. testing whether or not gender affects test scores).
- “In statistics, alternative hypothesis is…” should be changed to "In statistics, the alternative hypothesis is…”
- The last sentence, "In the domain of inferential statistics two rival hypotheses can be compared by explanatory power and predictive power," is vague and some elaboration as to why we might find this useful would be nice.

The term research hypothesis is not clearly defined, and there are no citations to show that this term is in fact used in academia.
The example is very bare-bones. It would be helpful to explain that the test assumes the null hypothesis to be true and determines how likely it is we see our observed data if the null hypothesis is true, in order to determine if the alternative hypothesis is false. This shows that the alternative hypothesis represents a departure from what we expect/assume
The section for types of hypothesis contains no citations
Point hypothesis could be better explained
The explanations for both one-tailed and two-tailed hypothesis reference a distributions tail, but it may be unclear what "tail" refers to (assume that someone with no knowledge of statistics is reading this article. How can we add relevant information or direct them to a page that includes said information?)
The article could benefit from more links to other articles and/or more graphics, e.g. that of the critical region for a one-tailed versus a two-tailed test
It would probably be helpful to include the mathematical formulation for different alternative hypothesis: e.g. if H_0 is \mu = 0, then a one-tailed alternative hypothesis could be that \mu > 0 and the two-tailed alternative hypothesis is \mu != 0.
The difference between a non-directional and a two-tailed alternative hypothesis is unclear to me. It might be useful to give an example of a non-directional alternative hypothesis that isn’t also a two-tailed alternative hypothesis