User:Qihan Peng/Blueberry Site/111tned111 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? Qihan Peng
- Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Qihan Peng/Blueberry Site
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
- 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? Sort of.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.
Lead evaluation: Well done! Concise and to the point. One thing you might want to add is the significance of the site in the lead section. Maybe if it's a one-of-a-kind site, or something that stands out about it to draw the reader in. Other than that it's good. I said sort of to the major sections, because the article itself isn't subdivided into individual sections with Headings. There's a tool in the Wikipedia editor that allows you to insert different Heading types, so if you can experiment with that to add some organization, then the lead section can better reflect that.[edit]
Content[edit]
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? Yes
Content evaluation: The content that is missing would be artifacts at the site. There had to have been at least something found at the site. You sort of mention it, but it's quickly glossed over. Maybe delving into the some of the specific artifacts at the site might help. Liked the characterization of the time periods at the site, made it easy to see the site's development over the years. Also there are a lot of terms that go undefined that the average person may not automatically know (alluvial, ocher, midden matrix, etc), so you may want to define them in-sentence briefly or link to an appropriate Wikipedia article if that first option doesn't suffice. I struggle with this a lot, and having been doing the same thing with my article.[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? Yes
- 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: You might just want to play around with the wording of some of the statements, such as "a lot of archaeologists believe". It makes it sound a little opinionated. One other article I read used the word "suggest", which sounds more like an inference based on observable data, and sounds a bit more neutral. Other than that, the rest of the article is pretty neutral.[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
- Are the sources current? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? No
Sources and references evaluation: Remember that in addition to the Bibliography, there's also a references section that can be generated in a Wikipedia article using the "Cite" tool in the editor. You should use this to cite any paragraphs where referenced information isn't yours, which is likely most of the article as with all of our class' articles. It'll create a little [1] next to the paragraph, and that one will show as a footnote at the bottom. This makes it much easier to find the citations for your site versus perusing the Bibliography. The Bibliography also has some extraneous text ("Adding citations")...not too sure if it's intentional or not. From your bibliography, it seems the source is up to date, but make sure to also cite the text in the article itself. Finally, you can always add some extra links to some other Wikipedia articles. It's not necessary, but apparently (Wiki guys told me this) it helps more people find your article. This is something I've also got to work on too.[edit]
Organization[edit]
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? Some here and there.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No
Organization evaluation: As I've mentioned, while the article is well-written and easy-to-follow, it would greatly benefit from some section headers to break down the article by different sections. Also, there are some minor spelling and grammar errors here and there, so perhaps one more read through to iron them out would be great. I'm literally the worst at grammar myself, so I can't point out all of them but you should be able to spot them after a second read-through.[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media N/A
- 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: N/A[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? No, but that's fine.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? One source, but it's fine in the context of the assignment.
- 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? No.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No
New Article Evaluation: All my comments for this section are the same as the "Organization evaluation" ones a little bit up.[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, for sure!
- What are the strengths of the content added? The words that are there are easy to read and follow, and do a fantastic job of outlining the site's progress over the years. It delves into various facets of life at the time, and gives an overview of what to expect at the site.
- How can the content added be improved? TLDR; adding section headers, significance in the lead section, adding extra hyperlinks, sorting out citations + bibliography, adding an artifact section