User:Jameshu1/Husky Union Building/Angelita Cecilia 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?

Jameshu1

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jameshu1/Husky_Union_Building?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Husky Union Building

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has been updated to add more information to the content.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, my peer had added more details information.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it has included a brief description of the article's major sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, my peer had provided more 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? yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
Is the content added up-to-date? yes, the content added is up to date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think it would be better if my peer can provide more information about the main function of each place and floors.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes, I think it deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the content does not appear heavily biases toward a particular position.
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 think no.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I am not sure about that.
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Not all, there is no reference for the second paragraph.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, there is no reference for the second paragraph.
Are the sources current? The references are not complete.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The references are not complete.
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? yes, I am sure that there are better sources available such as UW's website or UW's library.
Check a few links. Do they work? Some of the links works, but there is some sentence or paragraph which has no reference.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it's well written and easy to read.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are not many grammatical issues, but I think you can consider correcting the comma slice.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but I think it would be better to make it in a point to make it looks more easier to read.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

Overall Impressions[edit]

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article (is the article more complete?) Yes, the content has improved compared to the previous article.
What are the strengths of the content added? The background history information of the building.
How can the content added be improved? I think he can put some additional information regarding the function of each place or floors.