User:Mwill347/4ocean/Jpaul082 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? (provide username)
  • Mwill347
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • 4ocean

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • I do believe that the Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the Lead has an introductory sentence that describes what 4ocean is, where it came about, and the purpose of this organization.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The Lead does have a brief description of the article's sections of "History" and "Business Model", but the Lead does not include a description of the section "Awards."
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The Lead includes information about its operations in Haiti, but I do not see any other mention of Haiti in the rest of the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • I think that the Lead is concise and does not bombard the audience with too much unnecessary information.

Lead evaluation

Overall I think that the Lead is off to a good start. It contains relevant information to the topic and the article. However, The Lead does not include information about the "Awards" section that is later mentioned in the article, and the Lead mentions the operations in Haiti but Haiti is not mentioned again in the remainder of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • I think the content is relevant to the topic of 4ocean and informs the audience of the purpose of this organization.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • The content appears to be up-to-date as indicated by the use of recent sources.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I do think there is content missing such as the lack of mentioning of the operations in Haiti, and what exactly the organization uses to clean up the ocean.

Content evaluation

Overall I think that the content is okay. The content that is present is relevant to the 4ocean organization, however I think that there is some relevant information missing in this article.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content does appear neutral and does not try to sway the audience in any particular direction.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • I do not think that there are viewpoints that are over/underrepresented in this article, however content does appear to be missing.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall the tone and balance of this article is neutral and just presents facts that are applicable to 4ocean.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • The content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • The sources are current. The latest source that I can see dates back to 2018. It is important to keep in mind that this organization was founded in 2017.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The links that I have checked do work.

Sources and references evaluation

Overall the sources and references of this article are very good. These sources are reliable and recent, and are relevant to the information presented in the article.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The content is clear and concise, presenting information in bite sized chunks.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I do not notice any spelling or grammatical errors in this article.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The content is well-organized and is broken down into sections that contains information that is relevant to 4ocean.

Organization evaluation

I think that the organization of this article great. All of the information is concise and easy to read, there are no spelling/grammatical errors, and there are sections that describe the main points and accomplishments of 4ocean.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • The article includes an image of the organization's logo. This is beneficial so that the audience can identify an image with the organization.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • The image does not have a caption, but I do not think a logo needs one.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • The image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • The image is laid out is a visually appealing way by being in the top right corner which catches the audience's eye.

Images and media evaluation

I think the image and media in this article is good. I like that the logo is present and that it is placed where it draws the eye's attention. However, I do think adding more images would be beneficial such as what the bracelets actually look like and their team cleaning up the ocean.

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?
  • N/A
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • N/A
• 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?
  • N/A
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • N/A

New Article Evaluation

This article 4ocean is not new.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • I think the article is more complete, but it still has a ways to go with providing more information relevant to the organization.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • I think the content is relevant to the 4ocean organization and provides more information that is important for the reader to know in order to learn more about the organization.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The current content is good, more content needs to be added about what exactly this organization does and I think more images will be beneficial to this article as well.

Overall evaluation

My overall evaluation for this article is that this article is a great start and has really good potential. There are some edits that need to be made, but overall this article is good.