User talk:Cswed
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Wyoming/Architectural_History_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Cswed, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am not certain what you were trying to add to this page, but this was the page as you left it. Each of your edits at the page produced error messages. Please use preview to check the page before saving and please check again after saving... if errors are revealed please fix them before leaving the page altogether. References should be added inline at the point in the text to which they refer... not randomly placed at the beginning of the article (in this instance damaging the hatnote etc.) References start with <ref> and end with </ref>. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? cswed
- Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Cod_(house)&oldid=929120169
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not that I can tell, although my peer simply added to existing sections, so there may have not been a need to do so.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? From my perspective, yes.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, but there could be more reference to the topics discussed.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Nope! The Lead does not present information not discussed.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It looked concise and informative.
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes! The content related to the previous information and provided more insight.
- Is the content added up-to-date? The sources used seemed recent, and there were no discrepancies from my reading.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything added seems to belong to the article. Well done there!
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? There are a few areas where my peer did not remain neutral providing opinions and claims not backed by evidence.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? My peer calls Royal Barry Wills "the most successful marketer" with no citation leading me to believe it is my peer's own opinion.
- Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? Not in particular. Simply put, there are opinions that should have not been discussed without citation.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. But the Cape Cod House is discussed with obvious fascination and awe rather than the expression of fact.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? From what I could tell, yes!
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Again, looks like it!
- Are the sources current? They seem current!
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do!
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is definitely easy to read, but not entirely concise when it comes to relaying information.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Initially reading the article, I couldn't find any! Good job!
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes! It is well broken-up and laid-out.
Organization 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? It does feel more complete! I had to go looking for my peer's updates because they were removed unfortunately.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The new information adds a better depiction of the layout of the house as well as the 20th century adaptations and how the style of the Cape Cod House exploded into many other buildings.
- How can the content added be improved? As mentioned above, the information could be more concise and more neutral. There are opinions represented and "filler" remarks included. Without those, it would be a great addition!