User:ACMwiki2020/Photovoice/Yelenna Rondon 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)

ACMwiki2020


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:,

Photovoice

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

I don't think so.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Somewhat, although very general. Not sure the direction the article is going.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes it is.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

For the most part, this is a relatively new method.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes, it could add the methodology underpinning the method, and links to examples of how t is used in different fields.

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 over-represented, 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?

I believe so. But I am not an expert in this field.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

It offers a wide variety, but it would be good to see how it is applied in various fields.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Not that I noticed.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, some of the links include pictures as you hover over them.


 * 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.

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?

Yes.


 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

I am not sure. I am not an expert in this field.


 * 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?

Yes, very nicely.


 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

I believe so.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Not sure.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Maybe include some information about the methodology underpinning this method.

Overall evaluation
Very nicely organized.