Jump to content

User:Elizabethpopoff/User:Elizabethpopoff/Affogato/Allie partridge 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?
    • Yes, the lead has been updated with new content.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Yes, the first sentence is clear and concise.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • The bulk of the article is the lead. Therefore no other section is mentioned.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • No, the lead does not include information that is not presented in the article.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • The lead is concise.

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes, all the added content is relevant to the topic.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes, all the content is up-to-date.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • There is not content that is missing or 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?
    • No, the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • Yes, all the added content is neutral.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No, there are no biased claims.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • No, there are no over represented/underrepresented viewpoints.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • All new content is backed up by sources, however some of these sources are blogs which may or may not be reliable.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • I believe they do reflect the available literature on the topic.
  • Are the sources current?
    • Yes, the sources are current.
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
    • The sources are written, by many different people from many different cities. The authors do not include historically marginalized individuals, however I do not think that is important for this specific article.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes, all links work.

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Yes, all content is well-written and easy to read.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • No, the content does not have any spelling/grammatical errors.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes, the content is well organized. It may be helpful to add another section describing presentation of the dessert.

Images and Media

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
    • n/a
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • n/a
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • n/a
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • n/a

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?
    • n/a
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
    • n/a
  • 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?
    • n/a
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
    • n/a

Overall impressions

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
    • Yes, I believe the add content helps the reader further understand an Affogato.
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • The new content helps the reader understand the presentation of the dessert, which varies from the presentation of most desserts.
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • I think the content can be further improved by breaking some of the information into a section other than the lead.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elizabethpopoff/User:Elizabethpopoff/Affogato/Allie_partridge_Peer_Review&oldid=985130399"