User:Vedisobe/Cultural identity/Grackle.cackle 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?

Vedisobe

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Vedisobe/Cultural identity
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Cultural identity

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

I liked your lead paragraph, it checked out to me in terms of content. I wasn't sure how you're intending the work in your sandbox to relate to the lead content that's currently in your article, but I imagine you have a plan.

Content

It looks like you have a bunch of important missing content you're adding to the body of the article. It looks like you have a good array of historical work in that regard that's currently missing, I'm curious about whether you plan to include more contemporary work on this topic? Maybe there's already some of that in the body of your article. The array of scholars you picked to talk about definitely seem to be relevant to the equity gap convo-- i'm wondering if there's others (maybe less well known scholars, scholars from the global south, etc) that might want to be brought in to your content (genuine question, i don't know the answer!). The future paragraph could use more fleshing out in particular, curious about the alternative perspectives you reference but don't go into.

Tone and Balance

I don't really have any feedback for your about tone and balance, it all looks good to me!

Sources and References

I think my big feedback here is to add more sources in general, both sources from the scholars you referenced and also contemporary sources. I know that a big part of what you're doing is filling in the gaps for the history component of this topic, so it makes sense that you are using a lot of older sources for that. It would probably be good to reference, like, one or two major works for each of the scholars you listed that contribute to the topic of cultural identity.

Organization

obviously, this is still a rough draft, but it seems like you have a good organization system coming together.

Overall impressions

Seems to me like you're on a good track for improving the material in your chosen article, especially re// filling in the gaps about the historical context and development of the topic. I'd mostly encourage you to continue adding references and to fill in more content where there are gaps in what you're adding (again, understanding that this is a draft)