User:HistoryandLiterature/James P.M. Ntozi/Meticulousonion Peer Review
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)
- HistoryandLiterature
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Perfect
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The first three sentences are excellent, the last two may best serve the article leading the research section.
Lead evaluation
[edit]You have a lot of information to synthesize into a small lead here, I think you are on the right track but could focus it in a bit more.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No
Content evaluation
[edit]You have discovered a great deal of information on the subject and it all serves to build a background of him. It seems like you found a lot of information from your sources, so much so that it may be worth going back and ensuring that all information included is relevant to his life and career. I found that the section on his work at the university included some accomplishments that were impressive at the university but may not be as useful for a world audience.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- None
- 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?
- No
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Your article does an excellent job of simply presenting the facts you have researched without putting any spin on them. Great work!
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, several of your citations give confirming information to each other.
- 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, but I fear that they could be inaccessible to someone outside of OSU due to the proxy links. If the articles have a public facing link I would try to replace the links.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Once again, you have found an impressive amount of research on his life. If possible, it would be interesting to have a little more information on his work and potentially some more examples of it being used by governments or other academics to conduct change.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, within each section
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- None apparent
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes and no. It is subdivided well but the organization of the sections could be made more fluid.
Organization evaluation
[edit]Your writing is excellent within each section. From a reader's perspective, I think it would be helpful to reorganize the article to reflect aspects of the career with chronological subdivisions in each section. I have found that a lot of articles will organize major parts of careers (education, research, etc) chronologically and then include any additional information at the end.
Images and Media
[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]It can be a challenge to find fair use images for these subjects, but if you can locate anything for the sub-topics it may be useful. For example, https://ccsearch.creativecommons.org/photos/b9f2d5c8-e1e8-4c53-8ed4-db4138b6e2a3 is an image of the main building at Makerere that could be used in your section on it.
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?
- Yes
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- Yes
- 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?
- No
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- Yes
New Article Evaluation
[edit]You have done great work gathering sources and writing an article. I think the only way to improve from here is to lock down the formatting of the article. There is a good template included in the editor (although it can be really awful when you paste it into the article) that can help give an idea for how to format. I have included it at the bottom of this reply so you don't accidentally break your sandbox article (like I did) when you paste it in.
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]Your article is in a great place from an information perspective and just needs a little more work to be ready for publishing. Well done!