Colindresj

Welcome!

Hello, Colindresj, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colindresj/Corrigedora_(novel)/NoahMullens_Peer_Review

General info[edit] Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Colindresj Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Colindresj/Corrigedora (novel) Lead[edit] 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? Make the first word the title Mention more precisely the content, not just the setting (Kentucky) Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Mention briefly the critical response to the novel Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Break down then 3rd sentence Lead evaluation[edit] Content[edit] Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? It is all relevant Is the content added up-to-date? The only source is the novel so I do not know, but I think so Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Summary is missing Make the subheadings under Themes a smaller font (I think?) Content evaluation[edit] Tone and Balance[edit] Guiding questions:

Only really applicable to Themes section

Is the content added neutral? Yes, I would just add sources under themes to back analysis Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All the themes have the same amount of work done, so no. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No Tone and balance evaluation[edit] Sources and References[edit] Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, especially for words in "quotes" Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The only source is the novel, so not yet Are the sources current? The only source is the novel, so no Check a few links. Do they work? The two links work, so yes Sources and references evaluation[edit] Organization[edit] Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, some sentences need to be rewritten for clarity or to be broken down, but it is mostly all clear 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, maybe critical response can also account for accolades, awards, or reception Organization evaluation[edit] Images and Media[edit] Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images Are images well-captioned? No images 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[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? No, there is only one sources How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is only one source 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? Yes, it follows the pattern of most pages that are about specific novels Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it will link to the author's page New Article Evaluation[edit] Overall impressions[edit] Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it will largely improve information on the novel by moving it form a blurb in the authors page to an individual page What are the strengths of the content added? The writing style, the information, the structure How can the content added be improved? Filling it out, adding more sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahMullens (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)