User:Zjm648003854/Fake news websites in the United States/Zhujux1 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? zjm648003854
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Fake news websites in the United States
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has.
- 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 doesn't.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No, it isn't.
Lead evaluation: The lead is very well-developed, and helpful for me to understand the article.[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant. I do not see any statements that are not on the same topic of Fake News.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up to date. All the examples of news sites and feeds that use fake news are relevant today.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. All the appropriate content is in the Wikipedia page.
Content evaluation: The content contains relevant information to the topic, and good examples.[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes. The content has been taken directly from another credible source. There is no opinion, neither negative nor positive.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are not. There also aren’t many edits however, that are about specific people or positions they hold.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there are not viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content that has been added is minimal and strictly taken from other sources. It does not read off as biased in any way.
Tone and balance evaluation: The tone is good, and the balance is acceptable.[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the sources of information are news sites that publish daily articles that have reviewed and revised by others.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They are not as thorough as they could be. I would prefer a more available and throough piece of literature like a scholarly article. News sources can be biased.
- Are the sources current? Yes, they are. The source provided is from 2020.
- Check a few links. Do they work? I checked it. All the links worked.
Sources and references evaluation: Sources and references support the topic and help the topic well.[edit]
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well written and there are no errors. It is short and to the point.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I did see, however, not much content was added to begin with.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No. There is no break down will bullet points. It could be organized more. There are separate sentences that have been added to the older content that was already there.
Organization evaluation: This article is well-organized.[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media: My peer did not add any images. When I went through the edits, I did not find any.
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, it doesn’t.
- Are images well-captioned? No.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No
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? Yes, it does.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? This article is well-represented.
- 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? This article follow the patterns of other similar articles.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, it doesn’t. Because there are a lot of articles similar to this.
New Article Evaluation: Overall, this new article is very well-written.[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content does not improve the article, but it also doesn’t weaken it. I do not really see any difference in having the pieces of information that were added. They were not specific nor placed under a subsection.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The strength is that it came from a news source. Since this source is reliable, it can be used for research.
- How can the content added be improved? The content should be more detailed. I did not notice a large change in edits nor updates to the content. This topic is one that is constantly being written about, there is plenty of information that can and should be used.