User:Coffee1799
 | This user is a student editor in U_of_Maryland/Writing_Genres_as_Social_Action_(Fall_2020). |
Peer review/ coffee1799[edit]
This 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) Crazy326459
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Criticism of democracy
Lead[edit]
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?
Lead evaluation: There seems to be a lead, however, I am not able if it was a recent edit by the student or older.[edit]
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?
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Content evaluation: Yes, the content that they have added seems to be relevant to the content.[edit]
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: Being that I think that is article is biased, I think that most of the information that the students have added seems to be neutral.[edit]
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?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation: Yes, most of the paraphrases and quotations are cited with references.[edit]
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: Yes, I think that the contents added is relevant to the article.[edit]
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: There are no pictures. therefore, I think it would be helpful to add some pictures in order to help readers understand more.[edit]
For New Articles Only[edit]
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: NA[edit]
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?
Overall evaluation: Yes, I think that the information added helped improve the content and the quality of the article. However, I do think that there should be pictures added.[edit]
ARTICLE 2:
Peer review/ coffee1799[edit][edit]
This 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) Wiki811pedia
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Misogyny
Lead[edit]
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?
Lead evaluation: I am not quite sure if they edited or added a lead.[edit]
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?
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Content evaluation: Yes, the content that they have added seems to be relevant to the content.[edit]
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: Being that I think that is article is biased, I think that most of the information that the students have added seems to be neutral. However, I think it is hard to added information that is non biased to a source that I think is biased.[edit]
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?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation: Yes, most of the paraphrases and quotations are cited with references.[edit]
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: Yes, the content seems to be well written and cohesive.[edit]
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: The images seem to fit the article well.[edit]
For New Articles Only[edit]
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: NA[edit]
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?