User:LycheeJelly1/Anderson Park (Redmond, Washington)/Jonathan Kvech 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?

LycheeJelly1

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:LycheeJelly1/Anderson Park (Redmond, Washington)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Anderson Park (Redmond, Washington)

Evaluate the drafted changes

	Lead The first sentence of the lead section is quite long. Maybe consider splitting it up into separate sentences, with “Anderson Park is a park located in Redmond, Washington listed on the National Register of Historic Places” as the first one. Content What you have added is a good start on the information about the park and its namesake. One thing I would suggest is expanding upon Albert Anderson. What exactly Anderson has to do with this park in particular and why they named this specific park after him, as opposed to other parks. Possibly expand upon its previous functions as the senior center as well as the specific city administrative offices that resided within the park prior to the development of city hall. Tone and Balance The content added does appear to come from a neutral lens towards the park. However, with the statements, such as “key to the modern redevelopment of the park”, be careful with opinion-based statements on what classifies as “key”. Possibly consider naming examples of Andersons “key” efforts regarding park projects and volunteer coordination. I would try to include more objective facts based upon the park’s functions and the public services it offers. Sources and References Sources used do seem to be up to date and relevant to the topic. I would suggest trying to find more sources, alternative to just the parks website and the national registry. If you cannot find any online news articles on the park, I would suggest maybe going to a local King county library and/or the library website if possible and seeing if there is any information on the subject there. Organization Again, I would re-arrange the first sentence and check the grammar used. In addition, attempt to expand upon things addressed in the lead area, for example add a section on elaborating on the parks namesake and exactly how he was so important to the park that it was named after him. As well as, adding a section about the park’s public functions past and present, describing exactly how and why it is used by the public. Images and Media N/A Overall impressions The work that you have added looks to have improved the quality of the article. Again, as I have stated, I would suggest expanding upon the namesake of the park and his specific contributions. In addition to expanding upon the park’s past/current public functions as well. Good start, I wish you luck in your search for more information to expand!