User:Cation2020/Jane S. Richardson/Blacksheep109 Peer Review

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)
  • Cation2020
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Cation2020/Jane S. Richardson

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • More details on the persona and a better introduction.
• 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, think about highlighting the main point of each section in intro.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • I do not think it is overly detailed, but I would consider reorganizing the sentences to make it flow a little better.

Lead evaluation

I thought all of the content was good, but I would consider rearranging it. I thought it was hard to read and the flow was not the best.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • I think it clears up the flow in some sections.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No

Content evaluation

I think your initial edits are looking good and helping with the flow.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, I think by adding the last name in place of she made it less bias.
• 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

I think these contributions are helping with the flow and overall make the article clearer and overall better.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Unsure
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Very
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, good range of dates from current to past.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

They all appear to be true.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Some part, some could flow better.
• 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 and redefining the sections was very helpful.

Organization evaluation

Well organized and good flow

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?
  • None
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • No images
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Still no images

Images and media evaluation

Images may be added later.

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

Not a new article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Make the flow clearer
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Unsure of what exactly was added, but the flow seems a lot better

Overall evaluation

I thought this was a great revision and made the article clearer.

Peer Review Response

@Blacksheep109: Thank you for your peer review! I intend to blend what I've written with the original article and will be conscious of flow. I will also review my lead and try to highlight the main point of each section like you suggested.