User:Andrew.willman/DHS Cyber Security Division/Charieceb Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Andrew.william
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]In Andrew's new lead, he does add more information containing the topics he will be informing his audience on. Considering the the original article is not very long he makes the lead longer in a good way yet still concise. Assuming the article isn't finished I feel like the lead may need a little bit more explain of the different sections of the article. I think the lead only speaks on the science and technology division and not much on the program or strategy sections. I don't think you have to say a lot about those sections considering you will most likely cover them within your article however maybe just state maybe like a sentence on each.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is relevant to the topic. Based on the topic and sources cited the content added is up to date. Nothing seems out dated. The content that is added so far doesn't seem to be missing or extra information that wouldn't fall under this topic.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The content added is neutral. I don't see any bias. The article so far has just been stating facts with no opinions or any added bias from a reference. So far the article only has the lead and mission statements from the DHS therefore there isn't any bias or persuasive tones.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The content is backed up but reliable source but I do believe that the Mission statements may have to be quoted because they are directly from the secondary sources. Might also have to watch for close paraphrasing. The sources are current and the links do work.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Organization evaluation
[edit]Based on the article formed so far the content is well written. No grammatical or spelling errors. The article this far is broken down in different sections.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
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?
- 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
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?
Overall evaluation
[edit]The content added has improved the quality of the article. The article is more complete and will give a reader more information without having to look at multiple different articles. I would say the strengths within the article id the neutrality of the article. As of right now I don't see any areas that need a lot of improvements. I feel like you are on the right track.