User:Arr8050/Coriolis effect (perception)/ButterflyGirl135 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

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?

Content

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

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?

Images and Media

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Arr8050

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arr8050/Coriolis_effect_%28perception%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Coriolis effect (perception)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Overall, I think you did a great job! There is not much for me to say when it comes to content. The start is effective and does a wonderful job explaining what the effect is. I also like that you mentioned the pseudo-Coriolis Effect. I do think a picture could be great for your topic if at all possible to find, since I imagine most visuals are related to the physics version. You may also want to break apart a couple of the sentences at the start, such as the second sentence that starts with, "this effect comes about as the head is moved in contrary..." The way you phrase it is easily understandable, but the sentence does feel a little too long while reading.

Article

History

History section flows well and is easy to understand. I like that it is more concise and focused solely on the history instead of the current iteration of the Wikipedia page that is more jumbled up. You may consider adding a sentence about the modern interpretation, and maybe even reiterate the modern role in the domain of psychophysical perception.

Causes and Effects

You made a good balance of clear and technical with your descriptions in this section, and the content from the various articles is paraphrased well with the Wikipedia guidelines in mind. This section is strong and flows well, I do not think anything needs real change.

Real World Instances

Like the previous section, I think this section is well-crafted and does not need change. It is straight-forward and informative, and the mentioning of the pseudo-Coriolis effect is a good choice.

References/Further Reading

The references all seem solid and appropriate with the Wikipedia guidelines. You were able to find a lot of good sources as well, which adds to the quality of your article. Many of the sources seem to have similar information further boosting the content.