Jump to content

User:Maggiehoang/London fog (beverage)/Lizzethmancilla Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
    • No, the lead is still the same. I think it would be beneficial to hint at what information will be covered in the rest of the coming paragraphs.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Yes, it is a clear and concise sentence that gives an overview of the drink.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • No, it gives a brief history in the introductory sentence but doesn't talk about the major sections ahead.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • All the information in the introductory sentence isn't covered again the article.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes, the content is relevant. It covers history, health benefits, precaution, and production.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes, all the sources are from the last five years.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • No, all the content belongs.

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • Yes, it is not trying to make the readers think one things over another.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No, the tone is very neutral and informative. It links all the information to the researchers/original site.
  • 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?
    • No, it doesn't take a position.

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • There are several from research articles. The rest of them come from coffee shops and some blogs.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • Some sources have more information than others, but still reflect some aspect of the drink. For example, some articles focus on Black Tea, bergamot oil, antioxidants, etc.
  • Are the sources current?
    • Yes, they are all within the past 5 years!
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes, all the links work. There is just one where you can't click the link because it is from a database you need to log into.

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, it is all clear and easy to follow along with. It provides a good amount of detail.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • No, there aren't any grammatical or spelling errors that I could find.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes, it is broken down into sections such as health benefits, precautions, and variation.

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?
    • There is only one picture of the drink by the lead.
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • The caption just says the name of the drink, but doesn't provide any further detail.
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • Yes, the picture is from the wiki commons.
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • Yes, the image is at the top right corner. I think it would be interesting to add more pictures throughout the article such as when it talks about different components in the drink.

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?
    • Yes, a significant amount of information was added to the article. Before there were only short sentences in the different sections, but it is now a lot more complete.
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • Maggie expanded on the health benefits of different aspects of a London Fog. She also added a lot more about the production and added a precaution section. It gives a more in depth understanding of the different components.
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • I think there's a lot of opportunities to add pictures which I think would be beneficial. If possible, I also think there's room to expand on more health benefits.

Overall evaluation

[edit]