User:Scucchiara01/Flowers of Mold/GarrettTonos 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? Scucchiara01 and Brady956
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Flowers of Mold
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? The "critical reception" section is not mentioned in the lead, but it is a minor section of the article.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead is very concise and informative. The only thing I would change is making sure all relevant content of the article is briefly mentioned in the lead. Also, I would go ahead and explicitly state some of the themes that are referenced in the lead.
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? All included content is relevant to the article. The content is very well presented, but there might be more able to be added. Maybe some cultural impacts or historical significance of the work? Maybe something about the author's experience in writing the works? Of course, adding anything is under the assumption that sources could be found for it.
Content evaluation
[edit]Over all, the content presented is relevant, informative, and well-formatted. The only thing that I would suggest is adding some more peripheral information other than summaries, given that good sources can be found on that stuff.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article assumes a very neutral and factual tone. The subject matter does not seem to really encourage subjectivity or persuasiveness, anyways.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
- 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
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources all seem reliable, and the links work. I trust that a thorough search for sources has been done in order to back up the information in this article.
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? Not to my knowledge
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the organization is impeccable
Organization evaluation
[edit]The organization is not an issue at all for this article. It is broken down into manageable, well written sections that make sense.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
- 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]N/A
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? Absolutely
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are 8 reliable sources cited, and the book is a recent translation of foreign literature, so this is a significant portion of references out there.
- 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? For the most part, yes. I think a historical/geographical importance or an author-centered section (i.e. how the author's life affected the work as a whole) could benefit the article, though.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It links to two articles, but I'm not sure if there are more connections that could be made.
New Article Evaluation
[edit]The construction of this article from scratch is impressive. It looks pretty professional and suits wikipedia well.
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Obviously, since this is a new article.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The synopses of each short story are concise and informative, as well as interesting. Organization is on point, and the tone is perfectly neutral.
- How can the content added be improved? Just add more if possible. I know this is a big ask, but I think really the only thing that CAN be improved is just the amount of information, as everything else is done well.
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall, this article is on its way to being an amazing resource about Flowers of Mold. In fact, I would go ahead and say it has already reached that status. Again, the only thing worth changing is if any new relevant info is found. Other than that, great work, and wikipedia should be proud to host this article! :)