User:Zes26/Brooklyn/Isabellala727 Peer Review
Appearance
< User:Zes26 | Brooklyn
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? (provide username) : Zes26
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Brooklyn
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- It does not appear so
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes it does
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes it does
- 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 detailed but not overly so
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes it is
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- it appears to be so
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No there is not
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- it does not address historically underrepresented topics, but there is a part about diversity
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes it is
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- There does not seem to be
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No there is not
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- It does not
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 it is
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes they are
- Are the sources current?
- Yes they are
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- It would appear so
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes the links 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
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- It does appear so
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes it is
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?
- Yes it does
- Are images well-captioned?
- Yes they are
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- they appear tp
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes they are
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?
- 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?