User:ProfGray/312/Peer review

Review another student's proposed edit, and reference(s), in their User or Team Sandbox

Write a peer review comment on the Talk page for their proposed edit.

Your comment should address all or most of the following questions.

A. Does the reference contain all required elements (e.g., author, title, publication, date) and page number

(1) tell you the page numbers

(2) add the page numbers to the proposed edit. Pages may be needed for multiple sentences.

B. How does the proposed edit compare to the cited page(s)?

You should compare the edit to the original source or to quotations provided by the student.

Does every part of the proposed edit fit the author's facts, argument, and intended meaning?
Explain clearly if the sentence(s) do not fit the source

C. Is there any "too close" paraphrase that relies too directly on the scholar's words and sentence structure?

If so, be sure to tell the student to improve the paraphrase or use a direct quotation

D. Does the proposed edit describe the scholar's idea and intent in a neutral manner (see WP:NPOV)?

If not, mention specific words or phrases -- and propose better wording!
If the content includes controversial ideas or disputed facts, ask the student to attribute these to the scholar. When in doubt, it is likely better to attribute.

E. Is the writing in an encyclopedic style? If not, propose specific rewording!

Does it try to sound persuasive, rather than dispassionate?
Is the writing too casual or colloquial?
Does the writing use the 1st or 2nd person? ("I found this article by Mendenhall. He tells you about a suzerainty treaty.")
Does it present a scholar's view as if it's an incontestable fact?

F. Does each paragraph make a cohesive, single point, which is supported by the rest of the paragraph?

The point can be complex and contained in a long sentence.
The point should not be buried in the middle of a long paragraph.
Note: Some paragraphs might provide a narrative, or series of assertions, without an overall point.