User:Moonstar0619/Contact scraping/Imakespaghetti29 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Moonstar0619
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Link

Lead

Guiding questions:

• 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: The Lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections. The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The Lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content

Guiding questions:

• 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?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation: The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. There is no content that doesn't belong, but the author can definitely go more into detail on some topics. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, nor does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• 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: The content added is neutral and there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No viewpoints are under or overrepresented, and the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• 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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation: Most of the content added is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources are thorough, but more sources need to be added to reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current and up-to-date. There aren't enough sources added yet to judge if they've written by a diverse spectrum of authors or if they include historically marginalized individuals where possible. I checked a few links, and they work.

Organization

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: The content added is well-written, concise, clear and easy to read. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The content added is well-organized and broken down into appropriate sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

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: The author hasn't added any images yet.

For New Articles Only

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: This article is not a new article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• 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?

Overall evaluation: The content added will definitely improve the overall quality of the article and make the article more complete. The strengths of the content added is reliability (backed up by peer-reviewed academic journal sources) and visibility (links to many other articles). The content added can be improved by elaborating further and going more into detail into the ideas introduced. All the best!