User:Chen1649/St. Bernard's High School (Eureka, California)/Aliyahm 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? chen1649
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chen1649/St. Bernard's High School (Eureka, California)

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? 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

Content

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.

Tone and Balance

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?

Sources and References

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?

Organization

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.

Images and Media

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?

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?
• 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?