User:Msfoli/Glomeribacter gigasporarum/KPadavich 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? Msfoli
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Msfoli/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, this is a new article.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, it defines the subject concisely and includes links for further understanding.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No major sections have been added yet.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, the Lead is all that is present so far.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It seems concise as it is now, if more is added to the article it may be beneficial to reformat it.
Lead evaluation
[edit]The Lead seems to summarize many defining characteristics of the topic well.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, as far as I know. The most recent reference is from 2004.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- It looks like a great start for the article, it may be helpful to break the topic into sections for enhanced readability.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No
Content evaluation
[edit]The content so far is very descriptive. I suggest breaking the topic down into sections.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
- 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 it seems factual and well backed.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The tone and balance overall is neutral and unbiased.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, scientific journals
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes
- Are the sources current?
- Yes, if available try to find one from the 2010's
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources look to be very reliable, as the article grows it should include a few more sources.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
- 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?
- No
Organization evaluation
[edit]The writing so far is well written and descriptive. It could use sections later on.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No
- 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]No images
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?
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?
Overall evaluation
[edit]I think your Lead is very well written and describes the topic well. It could use and image if available. Titled categories could be added to increase digestibility and provide in-depth content. The references are high quality. Overall it looks like a great start to the article.