User:NoraLeblanc/Florence Knoll/NoraLeblanc Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do 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?

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 for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Kimleegalak, Nikitadaigle, Qetsia et Davityan Armine

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:KimleeGalak/Florence_Knoll
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Knoll

Evaluate the drafted changes

Modification de la section introductive sur Florence Knoll (Nikita)

- Il serait intéressant de garder un lead qui va aux informations essentiels que vous allez parler dans votre article, puisque l'introduction me semble trop longue. Il y a beaucoup d'informations pertinentes sur son parcours (etc.) qui pourrait être séparé en paragraphes clairs qui ferait parti du développement, comme une partie plus biographique par exemple.

- La plupart des paragraphes de cette section commence par "Florence Knoll", donc peut-être varier la construction des débuts de phrases pour éviter la répétition.

-malgré tout, très pertinent et les informations sont bien transmises

Modification de la section "Les premières années" (Kimlee)

- le paragraphe parle plus de son parcours scolaire et de sa famille, il serait peut-être intéressant de repenser le titre de la section, est-ce que "les premières années" illustre bien l'information communiquée?

- informations justes et bien amenées

Modification de la section Knoll International- Knoll Associates (Qetsia)

-paragraphe très pertinent et bien écrit

Contributions Majeures dans l'architecture de Florence Knoll

- Je trouve qu'il est bien d'ajouter ce genre de paragraphe afin de bien comprendre son impact dans l'histoire

- Je ne suis pas certaine que le mot "majeures" dans le titre du paragraphe soit considéré comme neutre (à voir)

Sources et Bibliographie

- S'assurer de bien citer les références dans les paragraphes

- la source est bonne, il s'agit d'une source fiable (ouvrage papier), mais je n'en voit qu'une seule, donc s'assurer d'avoir une certaine variété de sources

Autre: Penser à ajouter une image libre de droit si possible

Bon travail! Vous êtes sur la bonne voie!