User:Muhyul Go/Elizabeth Ngugi/HistoryandLiterature 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

• Mohyul Go's Elizabeth Ngugi contributions
• User:Muhyul Go/Elizabeth Ngugi

Lead

Guiding questions:

• No lead

Content

Guiding questions:

• The content is relevant. It provides insight as to what Ngugi cared about and what she has researched.
• The content is up to date, as it talks about events in the past.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • no

Content evaluation

There isn't too much content here so it is difficult to evaluate. However, I think what you do have is useful. It tells the audience what Ngugi researched and spoke about.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Tone and balance evaluation

I like how when you describe the research findings. It is clear that it is not an opinion but just what the research discovered. Everything is very carefully worded to avoid bias.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes
• 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

The sources are studies themselves. I wonder if there are any articles about her that could be useful for more biographical information.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I would add "also" in the second sentence between "but" and "engaging." The phrase "not only....but" usually expects an "also" after but.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes

Organization evaluation

Organized by different studies. Very clear!

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?

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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Adds details about her research.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • More content about personal life, opposing views, and/or more information on her research.

Overall evaluation

The additions adds insight on what Ngugi researched and thus what she was passionate about. It is organized by two different studies. If you can find any more biographical information or opposing views that could help expand the already existing article. Or maybe even you could find more research studies to present in here. Great job!