User:Mackenziebrumbaugh/Impulse purchase/Nrkjordaan 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? I was reviewing Mackenziebrumbaugh
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mackenziebrumbaugh/Impulse purchase
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not really, it doesn't seem so.
- 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? Minimal, I don't think so honestly.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Its short and to the point.
Lead evaluation - Needs Work[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it was edited 5/07/2020
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Missing some stuff, does not seem to have that much info.
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? Not that I can see.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I don't think so.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Persuade.
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I think so, Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes there are sources.
- Are the sources current? No, most resent is 2011.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work.
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 its easy to read.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I have seen.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.
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?
- 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?
- 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?
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? Article is not complete.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The intro of the article.
- How can the content added be improved? Every section needs a little improvement.