User:Lyang82/Lavinia dock/Nhooloo1 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]Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- The lead includes the addition of the works that Dock edited and is much more focused on Dock than in the original article.
- The introductory sentence gives a brief overview of all the aspects of Dock's life that are covered in the article, and the next sentences in the article elaborate on the key details and achievements in Dock's life that are highlighted in the article
- The lead mentions the American Journal of Nursing, making it appear to be a key theme of the article, but there are no references to this journal in the body of the article itself.
- The lead is sufficiently concise given the scope of the article.
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- All the information that is present in the article is accurate and relevant to Dock's life. Furthermore, there is considerably more elaboration on the ideas expressed in the lead than compared to the original article.
- The content is not relatively new, but given the fact that this is a biographical article, that is almost expected.
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- The content provided in the article delivered in a neutral tone, and there are no claims made in the article regarding Dock that would indicate any bias towards a particular position.
- Given that this is a biographical article on a rather uncontroversial figure, neutrality or tone balance does not seem like an issue that would need to be addressed, and the article draft has been written in a manner that ensures this is the case.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- The sources that have been provided, as mentioned before, are not relatively new, but that can be forgiven given the content of the article. All the links present are in working order.
- Clearly from the original article, Dock is not a very well known figure, and as such, it would seem that finding accurate and relevant source material for this biography would be difficult. Thus the new sources added give the article much needed background and allow for much more elaboration on the article's content.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- The content added, as explained above, is much more thorough than the original article while still remaining concise and not deviating from the material given in the original sources. There do not appear to be any typographical or grammatical errors in the article.
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Only one image is present in the article and it has not been altered in any way from the original. The image provided does give a detailed caption about the image and adheres to the copyright regulations of Wikipedia.
Images and media evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- As mentioned before, the article has been significantly improved. Considerably more information has been added to the article with the support of new, reliable sources. In addition, the information is presented in a much more concise manner that is appropriate for the article.
- One thing that can be improved is the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph does mention information that is not present in the article regarding the literature that Dock authored, so if possible, either an omission of this information in the lead or an addition of these works in the body of the article would greatly improve the completeness and cohesion of the article.