Jump to content

User:Nealthane/Theatre of ancient Rome/Jway04 Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
    • No, it may be helpful to add a lead that includes all the info you've added after you finish editing.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Although your origin section is extremely informative, there still needs to be a Lead included.
  • 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?

Lead evaluation: I'm not going to keep re-phrasing it in different ways, yeah just add a lead haha, your origin is great though.

[edit]

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes, the content is very informative and on topic.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes the content and sources are relevant and up to date.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • No, all the content is relevant and there are no major gaps in the added information.

Content evaluation: The content is up to date and well managed. There are no major gaps in the information and it's informative. Very well done.

[edit]

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, neutrality is maintained throughout the article.
  • 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: Tone is non-persuasive and the content is neutral.

[edit]

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Yes the references are reputable and reliable
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • Yes, they're all relevant.
  • Are the sources current?
    • Yes, they are all current
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes

Sources and references evaluation: Sources are relevant and reputable as well as current, well done.

[edit]

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • For the most part, there are a few sections where it gets confusing and there are typos, if you'd like I can point them out to you, just let me know!
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • Minimal typos and slight confusion in one or two sentences.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes

Organization evaluation: For the most part it's well organized and clearly written, there are just a few small areas where confusion is there.

[edit]

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 Although there are no added media images, it may be useful to find some!

[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?
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
  • How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation: The information you have added is extremely well organized and informative. Other than a few grammatical issues and typos this article is very well done.

[edit]