User:Saania Saxena/Linguine/Sophiegeary Peer Review

General info

Saania Saxena

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saania%20Saxena/Linguine?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Linguine

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- lead was not changed
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?
- You should probably introduce the dishes section
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Kind of - see next section for ideas on how to fix up lead
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead has a lot of detail and probably should be shortened a little bit. Some information that could be moved:
  - name origins (to new section)
  - traditional serving (to history section)
  - Genoa (to history section)
  - National Linguine Day to history section (maybe discuss the origin of this day being implemented?) (but I do like the part "Linguine originated in Italy and is based on more traditional pastas" because I feel that it introduced the history and linguine sections well)

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- yes the history and dishes sections are both helpful to create a full picture
Is the content added up-to-date?
- yes all of the sources were recently (except the dishes section but that doesnt matter since those dont change.)
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Suggestion I have for content to add :

name origins - Etymology section
ingredients
preparation (see Spaghetti wikipedia page - they have instructions for preparation and some utensils used)
Maybe add photos in the dishes section to show what each dish looks like
Regarding the Linguini dish section - maybe adding more information for each of the dishes that expand on the dish's origins or alternate names / what culture it originates from

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- no

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

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- the second paragraph in History does not have a citation - make sure to link that!
- yes! almost all of the information is reliable - a lot of UW library content (even for the recipes which is impressive)
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
- yes
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- yes
Are the sources current?
- some are , some aren't, but the sources that are less updated are really only the dishes, so that doesn't really change and isn't a problem.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- yes - brings attention to multiple cultures that eat this dish and various ways
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.
- No, they used a lot of good articles found on the UW databases so that ensures they are good.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- yes they all work

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Concise and well organized information in the sections you added.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Grammar suggestions:
  - in the second paragraph of History, change the word structure to flow better: During the 1800s, linguine with clams made its debut in New York as Southern Italians immigrated to the United States.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- It is well organized for the most part except you should probably put some of the lead's information into the body paragraphs.

No added images.

I think that adding some images in the linguine dishes section could be really useful for a visual aid.

Not a new article.

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes! The added content definitely improved the overall article quality. The dishes section is perfect for elaboration on the specific ways to utilize linguine and the basic forms that they are usually presented in. The history section is also great, and definitely useful for context, it could even be slightly expanded upon I think to make the article more complete.
What are the strengths of the content added?
- The content aded is very cohesive and not too wordy. It does a good job at laying down the facts and doesn't go off topic or discuss any unimportant information. There are also very few (or none at all) grammar / spelling errors. I also liked how they put the wiki hyper links into a lot of their new content to give further context and information.
How can the content added be improved
- I think that the content could be improved through a few additional sections of relevant information (see content tab for my suggestions on what else to add). I found it to be very useful to look at wiki pages for other similar topics for inspiration - so looking at the wikipedia page for spaghetti or penne might help give you some ideas on how to expand and have more information on the page.