User:Nancy.lynn4/Jessica Littlewood/Marshaemerson 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? Nancy.lynn4
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nancy.lynn4/Jessica Littlewood
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- No, not at the time of reviewing.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- A content box, yes. Not any explanation.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Yes.
Lead evaluation[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- It is relevant.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- In regards to what is added, there is no information missing that I know of.
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
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, it does not.
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- There is no source added or citation for the new information.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- N/A
- Are the sources current?
- No, there is no citation for the new information.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- The one link from the previous information is working.
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?
- It is clear, but there could be a better transition from her recognition of passion into what that has to do with the use of her personal vehicle.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- It appears like it would be added on the first paragraph so there would be no breaking down of sections.
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?
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- There is no sources added so there could be more citations and sources for the 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?
- It does follow similar articles, however, I personally would put the information added into a subsection of some sort like "political career" or something like that and keep the introduction more clear and concise.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- The information that was in the original article is linked, but nothing in the new information by the looks of it.
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?
- There could be more information presented about her political career, personal life, etc.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- It allows for an understanding of how passionate Littlewood is for her constituents.
- How can the content added be improved?
- More information on Littlewood and her life, as well as citations and sources for the information could be added.