User talk:Quintonimo77/sandbox
General info
[edit]Quintonimo77 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Quintonimo77/sandbox&oldid=926777509
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but some details in the introduction are unnecessary like pipe diameter.
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead has not been updated to reflect any new content. It accurately describes the content of the article, but contains some unnecessarily detailed information. A short description of how it works would be better than describing the pipe diameters it can be used for. The lead also does not include information about where this method has been used, associated incidents, or safety concerns which are included later in the article.
Content
[edit]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?
Content evaluation
[edit]I think the article could be improved most with the addition of media and separating sections into more focused subsections. The current content is relevant to the topic and up to date with the exception of the last section, which contains a series of news updates on public safety concerns. It has not been updated since April of 2018.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article is very americentric, it only mentions usage of the technology within the United States. A great addition to the article would be to include some more international context to the technology.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Sources are in order, links work, and appear to reflect available literature on the article topic. Some (16-24) are named strangely and do not cite an author, website, publisher, or proper name.
Organization
[edit]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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]The sections are organized clearly. The sections themselves almost completely lack structure. They present themselves as daunting walls of text with no subsections or media.
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
[edit]The article contains no images or media. The article could be improved drastically with 2-3 images (spitballing here): an animated cross-section of a pipe, a real life pipe with CIPP, and an image of CIPP being installed.
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?