User:Qihan Peng/Blueberry Site/Ash.ac1117 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? Qihan Peng
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Qihan Peng/Blueberry Site

Lead

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?
  • no
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • no
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? combination of both.
  • Some sentences can be broken up into multiple, while others need a little more supporting details to strengthen them.

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?
  • no

Tone and Balance

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

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • I think some of the information you included in your article can be back up by including the source you got it from .
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • yes
• Are the sources current?
  • yes
• 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?
  • yes, but can use some work.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • yes
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • yes and no, it's on the right track.

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?
  • I only saw on source listed, but I'm sure the creator is going to include more as they continue to write.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • It could use a few more sources
• 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?
  • yes, there are some sections broken up but no subheadings for the,
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • it still needs a bit of work
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • so far, they're pretty good!
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation:

I think the person writing this wikipedia page is on the right track. Because it's just a draft, I believe the writer is going to include more information and structure the wikipedia page differently. Although it is apparent that there are different sections of the article, there's no headings to tell what each section specifically is. Including the subheadings will make it a little easier for viewers to find specific parts of the article that they would want to read. Some of the sentences would benefit from being broken up into smaller ones. Long sentences seem like a run-on and can be a little difficult to read. Making these small adjustments will definitely help your article a bit. Keep up the good work!