User:Paytdaddy/Processing fluency/Cecethack 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? Paytdaddy
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Processing fluency

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but a little confusing, don't know if its about processing fluency, perceptual fluency or Retrieval fluency
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? under detailed, has only three sentences

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Missing, confusing article

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Sort of, pro processing fluency, lots of facts about it, which if true because the article is about it.
• Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? Things are underrepresented, not sure what but I'm sure there is.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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, lots with in 10 years
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Kind of all over the place
• 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? Needs more headers to break up work, needs to be re-organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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 and no, it does feel more complete. But still confusing.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Lots of useful information for the article, all relevant to what you are trying to say/talk about.
• How can the content added be improved? Needs to be broken up into different headers, so that it is easier to follow.