User:The Shabang/Phospholipase D1/Jimmyjohnslaser 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? Shabang
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:The Shabang/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A
Lead evaluation - You need to editing the lead to include your information.
[edit]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? No
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No
Content evaluation - Great!
[edit]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- Good
[edit]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
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? There are no links, just citations.
Sources and references evaluation - Make sure to cite your sources in your added content.
[edit]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? No.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes!
Organization evaluation - Very well organized
[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 image yet
- 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 - Add your image so I can see it :)
[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?
- 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?
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?
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?