User:Seashore0019/En.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enbrand1!/sandbox/Seashore0019 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? (provide username) Enbrand1!
• Link to draft you're reviewing: En.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enbrand1!/sandbox

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? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In her paragraph she is adding there does not seem to be any missing content or information that does not belong.

Content evaluation

The content is relevant and is up-to-date.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone of her paragraph seems unbiased and not persuasive.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, she used a book as sources, which are reliable.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, it is very in depth.
• Are the sources current? Yes, the book was from 2013.
• Check a few links. Do they work? There is a citation, but no link, but the citation comes up when entered into google.

Sources and references evaluation.

The source she has provided is good for this article and her reference looks like it is done correctly.

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 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? Yes, this addition to the article seems in depth and complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added? She gives very specific information that explains Islam in Cuba.
• How can the content added be improved? I do not think there is anything specific from her addition to this article that needs to be improved. The wording is easy to understand and in depth.

Overall evaluation

Her article addition was very well done and I feel it is a very good addition to the article.