Jump to content

User:Chen1649/St. Bernard's High School (Eureka, California)/Aliyahm Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

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? The lead has a good introductory sentence, however it is only two sentences long and does not have describe the upcoming content in the rest of the article.
  • 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? The lead is concise

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic, describing information relevant to a school.
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Content is up to date.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The academics section could have more content, given that it is the main purpose of the school.

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? The content added is neutral in tone.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No bias in this article.
  • 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]

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of the content does not have internal citations. I would add more internal citations and more references in general to add credibility and more variety of information to back up what is said in the article.
  • 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]

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well developed and written clearly.
  • 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? The sections all reflect sections I would expect for an article about a school.

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? There are no images in the article, I would suggest adding an image of the school at some point throughout the article or in the info box.
  • 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]