User:CiGaLynch/Magnus Millang/Gab99514 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?

CiGaLynch

Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft I'm reviewing
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Magnus Millang

Evaluate the drafted changes

Tone and Balance

Well done for providing neutral information in regards to Millang's professional career. You have successfully represented facts without pushing the reader towards a specific opinion.

Organization and Content

Your article is well-focused on Millang's career. I think it would be beneficial to add some sub-headings to further guide the reader, and to air out the text. The information presented is similar to what is in the current article, however, so if you want to focus on his career, or on his collaborations with his brother, for instance, perhaps that would be a great sub-heading within the career section. Also, great job on using WikiLinks for existing articles! Just make sure to check for grammatical errors, capitalization (i.e. Danish, YouTube, etc.), and syntax/wordiness - shortening sentences keeps the reader engaged and on track with what you wish to say. I'd also suggest reviewing and streamlining the original article for uniformity purposes with things such as the date layout for Millang's birth, the placement of commas, etc.

References and Sources

I am sure all the valuable information you have written is from traceable sources; just make sure to add references and citations for the information you have written!

Images/Media

None included in your draft, but that's quite alright ;) I'd suggest finding a poster or a photo of an ad depicting Millang's work.

Overall Impressions

Strong start! Keep going! I look forward to reading your finished article. I would focus on citation, formatting, and writing, but you've got neutrality and quality content down pat!