User:Allyssa9501/Oshawa Centre/Kelseycluett Peer Review

Contents

 * 1Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org peer review
 * 1.1Lead
 * 1.2Content
 * 1.3Tone and Balance
 * 1.4Sources and References
 * 1.5Organization
 * 1.6Images and Media
 * 1.7For New Articles Only
 * 1.8Overall impressions
 * 1.9Examples of good feedback
 * 1.10General info
 * 1.11Evaluate the drafted changes

= Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org peer review[edit] = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search {| class="wikitable" 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:
 * Peer review
 * Peer review

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?

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?

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?

Sources and References[edit]
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[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?

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?

For New Articles Only[edit]
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[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?

Examples of good feedback[edit]
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
 * }
 * }

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kelseycluett


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kelseycluett - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Physical disability

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
Hi Kelseycluett, here my peer review of the Wikipedia article Physical Disability. You have been doing a great job editing this article, as there were many content gaps that needed to be filled, and I hope this project pushes you to do more editing in the future.

Lead

The lead section is very simplistic and could benefit from additional information. Adding a few more sentences on some common physical disabilities might help to improve the lead section further.

Content

Much of the information in the article is fairly recent, with room for expansion in future edits. However, I recommend that you adding more types of physical disabilities, both common and uncommon, in order to make the page more helpful to casual readers. There are still various content gaps within the subject matter that have not been addressed in this page yet, and exploring the specifics of various causes and symptoms of each specific physical disability would improve the content of this page.

Tone and Balance

The information that has been provided in this article seems to be written from a neutral perspective, and there is no attempt to persuade readers.

Sources and References

Only some of the information that is present has been backed up via relevant scholarly sources. This could be improved in future edits by adding more accurate sources in order to make the information on the page more reliable. Some references should also be updated to newer, more reliable sources of information for the sake of accuracy.

Organization

Most of the content within the page has been well-organized. However, there are a few points where article was not written well, and when combined with some grammatical errors, it may be distracting to the casual reader. These are all small issues that can be improved in future edits.

Images and Media

There is one image present on this page, which is cited accurately and relevant to the topic of the article.

Overall, there is some room for improvement on this page, as there are still some content gaps present regarding the specifics of physical disabilities. By improving the existing content, continuing to add new information, adding more timely citations, and various, relevant types of media, this article can only be improved further. The Talk page does an excellent job at focusing on what topics should be added next, with the stigma around physical disabilities being an important part of these Talk page conversations. For continued work on this page in the future, I recommend discussing more types of physical disabilities, including uncommon types of physical disabilities, looking at potential treatment options, and what causes these disabilities and their symptoms.