Jump to content

User:RachKingg/Lake Georgetown/AntrelleClark98 Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it reflects new information added by my peer.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is an introductory sentence which gives the lake's name and where it is located.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It could be a better overall description.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is fairly concise for the amount of information provided.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content added is relevant to Lake Georgetown.
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content is up-to-date.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Maybe an image (if there is one that can be found) , and the other subheadings that Dr. Chraibi detected (also if can be found).
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No; No.

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? Yes it is neutral.
  • 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.

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the content has reliable sources.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Most of the sources reflect the available literature on the topic.
  • Are the sources current? Yes they are current.
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources come from different organizations.
  • Check a few links. Do they work? They do work.

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? Yes it is concise, and gets to the point the author is trying to make.
  • 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? Yes, it is well organized and broken down into some major points recommended by Dr. Chraibi.

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? 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

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? N/A
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
  • 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? N/A
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

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? Yes the content added makes the Wikipedia page for Lake Georgetown more complete.
  • What are the strengths of the content added? The references on where the author received their information.
  • How can the content added be improved? By adding more information.

Overall evaluation

[edit]

I enjoyed peer reviewing your article. I believe you are on the right track.