User:Lokkenva0117/Gila River War Relocation Center/Rippaj5583 Peer Review
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) Lokkenva0117
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lokkenva0117/Gila River War Relocation Center
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
- 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?Yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?Concise for the most part. I am wondering if it might make sense to make subheadings?
Lead evaluation[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?No
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?no
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?no
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?no
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?no
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?yes
- 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, a few sentences could be more concise.
- 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? For the most part. I think your part on internment has a lot of good information, but some of it is more the background or history leading up to internment. Maybe break the topic of internment into subcategories.
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?no
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
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
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?not sure
- 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?
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, just need to cite a few more things.
- What are the strengths of the content added? Gives an idea of Internment Camps, whereas the original page was mostly the history.
- How can the content added be improved? Mostly citing, and maybe organizing? Otherwise, looks really great!
Overall evaluation[edit]
Awesome job! You spent a lot of time and detail adding these topics to the page.