User:MArtin9712/Mahua (snack)/Maggiehoang 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)
- MArtin9712
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes. It has been updated and seems to be more refined than the original article.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- It does by describing what the snack is with wiki links for more information about the other ingredients.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- It does give us a good overview about what the article will be able.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No. The information in the lead looks relevant.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is concise. It is a good length to inform us about the snack.
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes. The article is broken down nicely with the content, easier to read.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes. The content is new added by the editor.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No. They all are relevant.
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- I think the content added is neutral. There aren't any convincing wording. It is mostly information about the snack.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No. I don't notice any biases.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No. The content is closely distributed. It has a good amount of information.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No. There are no convincing sides.
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. There are some reliable sources, but some are blogs (not sure about how reliable they are, but they are written in a neutral tone)/
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes. They give us more insight on this snack.
- Are the sources current?
- Yes. I noticed it is all within the last 10 years.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- #3 does not link to the article but to the homepage.
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?
- I think it is concise and clear. The way you broke down the old lead into content was a good idea.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I did not notice any.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes. Broken down very nicely instead of a paragraph of information.
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?
- Yes.
- Are images well-captioned?
- It is.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes. It looks like it was from wiki
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes. The one image has the information with origin which is helpful.