Jump to content

User:Mollyantfarm111/Croatan/Skitlizard 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?
    • The lead does include what was added.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Indeed it does
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • The lead is missing this section in part. It doesn't give what is to come, but instead gives a brief summary.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • It includes things that would be better off in another section of the article, such as the comment about Roanoke.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • It is almost too concise.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • The content is somewhat relevant. The first paragraph is most relevant, and gets less relevant from there.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • yes
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • The second and third added paragraphs don't seem to belong all that well.

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • The content is rather neutral.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • The third added paragraph seems to hold some sass.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • All the pertinent viewpoints seem to be represented.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • the added content is very factual and not very persuasive.

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Indeed, but more sources are needed for the amount of information provided.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • yes
  • Are the sources current?
    • yes
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • yes

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?
  • 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

  • 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?
    • yes
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
    • There could be some more sources that give some more background information.
  • 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?
    • The article contains all of these.
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
    • yes it does

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?
    • the article is more complete.
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • The strengths are that it adds to the overall knowledge of the topic in a clear concise manner.
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • The content can be improved with grammar revisions and more sources.

Overall evaluation

[edit]

Overall, the article holds many impartial facts about the Croatan people, but it needs a few more sources and some grammatical edits. Also, try explaining that "indian" is a term the Croatan people chose for themselves earlier on as now people call them Native Americans.