User:Sarahhem23/Burnishing (pottery)/BTayOkay Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Sarahhem23

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Burnishing (pottery)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Overall

I would say this a good start to the article. You have defiantly fleshed out a lot of the important pieces of information. I particularly like that you added the process of burnishing and some of the different materials that can be burnished. You have definitely improved the article!

I did already change some grammatical things -- nothing too big. I just reorganized some sentences. My biggest recommendation would be to pull some information out and create new sections so the lead can be a true lead (a summary of the article) and the the information can be easier to read.

Lead

Right now, there is no real lead. The whole article is the lead. Look at all the different pieces of information there are, figure out what categories they belong to, create sections in the article for those different categories, and then summarize everything in the lead.

For example, there can be a section call "Process" or "How to Burnish" or something like that. You can the put all of that information in that section. Then in the lead you just need to say something like, "Burnishing is a form of pottery treatment that uses a hard smooth surface to polish the surface of the pot." You can maybe give some examples in the lead, but leave the specifics for the section later in the article.

Content

Other sections you could create, at least from what I'm seeing (I don't really know about burnishing): you could have a whole section about the different materials that can be burnished; perhaps (if you have the sources) you could write about how burnishing is used in different cultures or throughout history.

I would also recommend explaining some of the information in the article already. For example, "It is described as a low-tech way of finishing pottery because burnished pottery needs to be fired below 1832F (1000C), which is different from firing glaze." How is it different than firing glaze? Someone reading the article, like me, may not know the process to fire glaze, so you need to give them a little info on how they are different.

Tone and Balance

I think the tone is very neutral and balanced.

Sources and References

Read through the article again and find the facts that have not been cited. If it is a fact, it should have a citation. For example, "Leather-hard clay is partially dried clay that is in-between being malleable and being brittle." Who says? I know this is a pretty simple fact and may not seem important to cite, but it is a fact and should be cited.

Organization

I've already talk about this a it so I won't got to much more into it, but breaking things out into different sections, and making a true lead, will make it easier to read. The first paragraph is especially hard to read at the moment. If it was a real summary of the article, and then the main information was put into different sections, the whole article would flow much better.