User talk:Cazeditor1
Cazeditor1, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Cazeditor1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Cazeditor1, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
EALC-110 Peer Review
[edit]Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
Cazeditor1
Link to draft you're reviewing:
User:Cazeditor1/sandbox
Lead
Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
No, however the information he put in doesn't need to added in the lead
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?
No
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
No, however, the lead is very short
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Concise and could use more information
Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is adequate but is in need of further information
Content
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?
The content added is adequate
Content evaluation
The content added is fine, although there are some typos and grammatical mistakes.
Tone and Balance
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
Tone is neutral and credible
Sources and References
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
Sources are good and he has provided English and Korean links.
Organization
Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Yes, it provides concise information
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
The word "performs" should be "performed" because it already happened. Also "2uary 12" should be removed as it is a typo.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Yes, the new info is consistent
Organization evaluation Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Yes
Are images well-captioned?
Yes
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Yes
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Yes
Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only
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 Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
The content has shown the groups recent activity but I think the full article needs more information
What are the strengths of the content added?
It added needed updates to what the group has been doing.
How can the content added be improved?
Fix the typos and grammatical mistakes
Overall evaluation
For what was added, it was good with minor mistakes. Like I said though, I think the articles lead could use more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanakaSho2 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)