User:Gracie15
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]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Lkd36 - AlClear
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- No, not necessary because there is already a published Lead
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, which is already published.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, but you will need to add in a brief description of the sections you are adding.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is fairly concise as is
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, great subtopics that add to the topic
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Not that I can think of, with the content they are adding along with what has already been published, I believe this article is very informative and covers all the necessary points.
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, although under reception I could see possible critique of a lack of neutrality possibly
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Point 2 under the subtopic "Reception" presents a bias that doesn't really have stats or evidence to back it up
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- I don't think so - it is very factual
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, good integration of sources into the paragraphs
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes
- Are the sources current?
- Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
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?
- Yes, I like how they organized the subtopics. It is also well-written and easy to understand.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, I like the flow of the topics they added
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media-------N/A there were no images added
[edit]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?
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?
- Yes, I really like the information that was added. It adds to my overall understanding of the company, which the original page really lacks.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- The background section and information about the founders is very useful. Also looking at unique subtopics that make the reader understand the company better is incredibly useful and smart (i.e. reception, anti-terrorism, etc)
- How can the content added be improved?
- I think it looks very good as is.