User talk:Cbogart1
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Wyoming/Architectural_History_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Cbogart1, 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) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
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? Cbogart1 Link to draft you're reviewing: Women in Austria Lead
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? Yes Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Seems concise Lead evaluation 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? No, everything seems to belong Content evaluation Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Slightly, one side is explained a little bit better than the other side. However, overall I'd say each side is represented Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint of the effort being counterproductive could be described a little more. I'm not sure exactly why they believe it to be counterproductive. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I don't believe it is trying to sway the reader either way. Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References
Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources do appear reliable Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They do appear thorough Are the sources current? Yes, the sources seem to be up to date. Check a few links. Do they work? There are no links in the article. The links in the sources work correctly. Sources and references evaluation Organization
Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is slightly confusing, but overall I'd say it's well written Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There aren't any spelling or grammatical mistakes. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the topic was organized well. 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? no 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 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? No 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? Yes, I would say it contributes to the subject and helps inform the reader on a broader perspective than what was there before. What are the strengths of the content added? It introduces an entirely new idea to the topic. And is very relevant to the main article. How can the content added be improved? A little more explanation about how the infastructure changes were positive or negative would have been interesting. Overall evaluation
Overall I'd say they did a good job adding on to the page. The information was interesting, and informative. The references appeared reliable. And it improved the page it was added to. PixelatedCodex (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)