User:Audkal/Ray Eames/Tsweeney617 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Audkal


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Audkal/Ray Eames
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

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?
 * I think this is a new article I couldn't quite tell. But I think there is a clear lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I think the lead is a good intro to what the topic will be about because it is a description of the person.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * I think what it could do is give a description of the article's major sections because right now it is very brief.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Everything that is mentioned is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it is very concise but I think it is a little too concise. I think it could be a little longer and more in-depth.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I think that that content added is very relevant to the topic and talks about everything mentioned. It is also outlined in each section title what will be mentioned.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I think that the content added is up-to-date from the sources used.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there is some content missing in each section but most sections outline that it will be added and edited. A lot of the sections say what they will add so it was hard to judge if anything in the future would be missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I can't quite tell if the topic addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations because I can't quite tell who this person is that they are talking about.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is very neutral and everything that is presented seems very factual and all backed up by sources.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There isn't really a position to take because it is based on a person.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't think there are viewpoints that are neither overrepresented or under because it is about specific person. I think that the only thing I would say is underrepresented is more information about this person in general.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I don't think it persuades in anyway it is just a general stating of information about this person and her accomplishments.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All of the information is backed up by a reliable secondary source.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes the information accurately reflects what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think that the sources are thorough but since there is not as much information in each of the paragraphs it makes me wonder if there is a lot available from the sources. I think that there is a lot of sources that present a lot of thorough information but it is not talked about in the new article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources look current and are a good mix of new and older sources depending on the section.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I can't quite tell if there are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * 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.)
 * I think that there could always be more sources to use. I personally like JSTOR through the UO library which always has good books and journals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think the content is well-written but a lot of the section are very short and don't include a lot of information. So right now it is a little too concise but it is mentioned that more will be added.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think it is very well-organized all of the sections are very detailed and show the major points of the topic.

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?
 * I think this is a new article I wasn't sure how to check. There is 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?
 * There are a lot of sources and I think it is a good representation of the 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?
 * I think the set up is similar to patterns of other similar articles and how it is set up. The necessary info boxes and section headings that are similar to other articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * yes the article links to other articles so it is more discoverable about the author and topics within the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * I think the images enhance the understanding of the topic and are a good representation of the person talked about.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are all well captioned
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes I believe so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * the images are all laid out very visually appealing and creates a good flow of the article

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think that this is new content so i'm not sure if it is adding to any previous articles. It looks like a new page because it seems like the information would be very general and staled in an original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the strength is that there is physical evidence of the work this person did.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think one way the content could be improved is by just adding more information and making it more in-depth. The info is very surface level so adding some more details would help develop the topic as a whole.


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them?
 * There is more than 5-7 sources but I think that is also because the pictures are cited. I don't think that there are any sources that are from the class readings. I don't think many of the readings will be helpful but one that could is maybe the one about the magazine and home set up and how it changed.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material?
 * I don't think that this topic links to our course material but I think that it could. I think it could be mentioned how Furniture shaped a household and maybe how Ray Eames did that. There definitely is room to add topics about the course material but it has to be presented in the right way.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article?
 * I think there is a lot of historical context because it is based on a historical subject. I think there could be some more about this person and what they did in relation to history and the furniture she made.
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further?
 * I would recommend considering to add information from the course and relate it to the person. I would consider adding content that wraps up the topic and tells us exactly what is being talked about and how it relates to the course.