User:Cgooby/User:Cgooby/Chocolate bunny/Allie partridge 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? Cgooby
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cgooby/Chocolate bunny

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, the lead now includes a "contents" box which includes most of the information new content added.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the introductory sentence is clear and concise.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes, the contents box explains the article's major sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, the lead does not include information not presenting in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, the content added is up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No, there is not missing content or content that does not belong.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, all the added content is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, there is not biased information.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, there are not viewpoints that are over/underrepresented .
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the added content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • All the new content is backed up by sources, however some of these sources include blogs which may or may not be reliable.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes, the sources reflect the available literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, the sources are current.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • The sources do not include historically marginalized individuals, however this is not crucial for this topic.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, all the links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, the content is very clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No, the content does not have spelling/grammatical errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes the content is very well organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • n/a
• 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

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?
  • n/a
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • n/a
• 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?
  • n/a
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • n/a

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes, I believe the added content improved the quality/completeness of the article.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The biggest strength of the content added was the new organized sections (with content in each).
• How can the content added be improved?
  • I believe the controversy section can be added to/improved. I believe that section should include further explanation.