User:JenniferMGA/The Telegraph (Macon)/Amdoubleu Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? JenniferMGA
• Link to draft you're reviewing: The Telegraph (Macon)

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, JenniferMGA added a table in the lead to reflect the name changes of the newspaper.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the Lead covers all of the necessary basic information.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the Lead briefly describes what follows in the rest of the article.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything seems to be included in both the Lead and the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, the Lead is concise. Although I think the table of name changes may be better suited for its own section rather than being included in the Lead.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all content added is relevant.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, JenniferMGA added content that is up-to-date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some dates in the name change table are missing and there seems to be a gap between the transfer from the Macon Telegraph Publishing Company (19??-1940) to the McClatchy Company (2005-Present).

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content JenniferMGA has added is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all included information seems unbiased and neutral.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Each addition seems to be fairly represented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, readers are provided with neutral information on the Telegraph.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the information JenniferMGA has added information with links to the appropriate sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, JenniferMGA has included a variety of sources that sufficiently cover the topic.
• Are the sources current? While the sources are older, it is because they cover a historical topic.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, each link that I tried worked well.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The Lead is easy to read and understand, but I do think the writing could use a bit of tweaking.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few minor grammatical and punctuation errors throughout the article.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is organized well, but is a little difficult to follow. Perhaps adding subsections in the History would help? Although I do know it is already broken down into subsections so that could add to the confusion.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there is an image of the Telegraph in the infobox. If available, including a picture of the first cartoon in the Telegraph could boost this section a bit.
• Are images well-captioned? The only picture currently is the one in the infobox.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, all citation information for the included picture is available.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

For New Articles Only

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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe JenniferMGA's addition of the name/publisher table is very helpful!
• What are the strengths of the content added? The table provides readers with a visual representation of what is discussed throughout the History section.
• How can the content added be improved? As previously mentioned, adding a few more pictures could make the article more visually interesting. I also think it might be better to place the table in a different location, but I'm not sure Wiki-formatting has a better option than it being in the Lead.

Overall evaluation

Overall, I think that JenniferMGA's contributions to the Telegraph article have improved its clarity and informative value. The inclusion of the name/publisher change table will allow readers with a visual preference to better understand the various changes to the paper throughout the years.