User:Chevyjm/Diversity arrays technology/Powell Cat Peer Review

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:

Examples of good feedback
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

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Chevyjm


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Chevyjm/Diversity arrays technology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Diversity arrays technology

Evaluate the drafted changes
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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
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
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
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
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?

Overall impressions
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?

Peer review:
Lead:

- It would have been better if you expanded the Lead; for the most part, it already is satisfactory, but touching on the topics you covered in the latter half, even in a sentence or two, would be great.

- It is concise and is clear, which is definitely good!

Content:

- All the content is related to the topic.

- In History, it would be good to maybe explain or at least link other wikipedia pages for early techniques.

- Everything added seems relevant to the topic, which is good.

Sources:

- All your sources are a bit old; it would be preferable to have sources at least from the 2010s, but it's still good that everything's in the early 2000s.

- Make sure to link each sentence in your article with a reference, using the Cite button. That's kinda essential for me to see what you referred for each section.

- You have a solid number of sources, though since I can't see where the citations are in the article, it's hard for me to give a comment on where you might need more.

Images:

- Would've been nice to relate the material to some pictures, but unnecessary.

Tone:

- Articles is a very neutral and presents itself in an unbiased way.

Organization:

- When reading, it would help for each paragraph in the methods section to have some sort of intro section so I know what it's getting at exactly.

- For example, at the start of History, "The concept of DArT was first ..."

Overall:

- The article is much more expanded and fleshed-out. I learned a lot more about the topic than I would've before

- It touches all important subjects; overall, well done!