User:Mohammed Asaad02/Elia el Hawi/Rhealabaky 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) Mohammed Asaad, Cyril Salame
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Fsk09/sandbox
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Yes the Lead has been updated.
- Yes, it includes an introductory sentence
- Yes
- All information included in the Lead is present in the article
- Lead is concise
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Yes the content is relevant to the topic
- Yes it's up-to-date
- Yes, there is a lack of explanation concerning his poetry and inspirations.
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Yes it is neutral
- No there aren't any claims that are heavily bias
- No view points are represented
- No it just informs him about the author
- Is the content added neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- 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?
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Yes they have references
- Yes they are mostly recent articles
- The first link doesn't work but the rest do
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Yes it is organized
- No it does not
- Yes it is divided into sections
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Organization evaluation[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
There are no images included in the article
- 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.
Yes it is supported by 4 reliable secondary sources
It doesn't represent all information on the subject, it lacks details but it summarizes the subject properly
Yes the article follows the same pattern as any other articles
No it doesn't link to any other article
- 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:
The article could contain more detailed information about the author's poetry and background
The main strength of this article is its structure and organization. This makes it clear and concise to the reader
The article lacks content, it could use more information as well as external links and pictures
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?