Template talk:Dashboard.wikiedu.org peer review

Peer review This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (Isabella Pham)Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Isabella_Pham/Digital_rhetoric Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is concise. Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? YesKhamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, viewpoints are evenly represented.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, content is free of bias.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Are the sources current? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Only one image, enhances understanding somewhat.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Are images well-captioned? No.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it's covered by Creative Commons.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, it's located awkwardly in the upper right corner.Khamelia H. (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only 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 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? Overall evaluation

Guiding questions:

   Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? "There has been some updates."
   Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? "No, it does not define sleep deprivation well enough or Cognitive Performance."
   Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? "No, it doesn't."
   Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? "Yes, it talks about brain lesions."
   Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? "No, it is not concise. How does brain lesions relate to sleep deprivation?"

Lead evaluation Content "Needs to be rewritten."

Guiding questions:

   Is the content added relevant to the topic? "Not all of it."
   Is the content added up-to-date? "No."
   Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? "Content needs to stick to the topic of sleep deprivation."

Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

   Is the content added neutral? "Yes, the content is 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 Sources and References

Guiding questions:

   Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? "I cannot see where the article has new content."
   Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? "Out of 56 sources used, only two are after 2009. So, this articles sources need to be updated."
   Are the sources current? "No."
   Check a few links. Do they work? The links are working.

Sources and references evaluation Organization "Some. Needs more."

Guiding questions:

   Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? "There looks like some copy and pasting from an article has occurred."
   Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? "Just quotation marks possibly."
   Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? 

Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media? "Yes."

   Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? "Yes, it does a good job of that, I think."
   Are images well-captioned? "Yes."
   Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? "Yes,"
   Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? "Yes."

Images and media evaluation "Ok" Lucretia ParkMamaluke78 (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)