User:Lizzethmancilla/Family disruption/Maggiehoang Peer Review
Peer review
editThis is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
edit- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Lizzethmancilla
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
editGuiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes. There are sources about the different kinds of disruptions and deleted the non relevant details.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes. The first sentence introduces the article clearly with the definition.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- There is no description with all of the disruptions but the sources are included next to it, which is significant.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No the information is all relevant.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It looks concise.
Lead evaluation
editContent
editGuiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes. They are content pulled from the lead.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- There are a few that is in the 1980s/1990s.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No. They all are relevant to the article.
Content evaluation
editTone and Balance
editGuiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes. The content added are majority information, not persuasion tone.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No. There aren't convincing sentences, it is neutral.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No. The content all has a fair amount. There's a few that are blank (could be for the next editor).
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No. There is no position.
Tone and balance evaluation
editSources and References
editGuiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes. The sources are from academic articles.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes. They are. They look like they are in the same topic.
- Are the sources current?
- Some are current.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes. A few do not provide a link.
Sources and references evaluation
editOrganization
editGuiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- It is. the information is easy to read and interesting.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I have not noticed any.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes. The different content makes it easier to read.
Organization evaluation
editImages and Media
editGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No images
- Are images well-captioned?
- No.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- -
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- -
Images and media evaluation
editFor New Articles Only
editIf 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
editOverall impressions
editGuiding 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?