User:Christina Silva1/The White Man's Burden/JoseDeLopez10 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? Christina Silva1

Im reviewing : Christina Silva1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Christina_Silva1/Sample_page&oldid=987576359

Lead

Guiding questions:


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

'''The lead is not a main focus on this article from the classmate. It's an add up of the Anthropologist's Wikipedia page. However, She provided extra information, subtopics and context that adds with to the existing Wikipedia page.'''


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

'''Not really. The lead doesn't add an introduction because the main Wikipedia page has it. However, you can find it as a subtopic. She provided more context along the page.'''


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

'''Not exactly major sections. For me they are like subsections of the background, history, how is related to applied anthropology, the topic and outcomes.'''


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

Not really because her information is more like an add up of the belief's main Wikipedia page.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

'''Here is more toward content than the lead section. But over all I love the structure and and it's so easy to read. Simple and straight to the point.'''

Lead evaluation

'''Because the Lead is not the main purpose of the classmate article. The evaluation of the lead doesn't apply much here.'''

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

'''Definitely. The information is towards the main topic "White Man's Burden" Giving context, background and history of it.'''


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

'''Yes. The sources are up to date and concise.'''


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

'''So far looks solid. Good organization and a solid structure so its easier to the viewer to read. Content connected to the main topic.'''


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

'''Yes. It belong to a subfield of Applied Anthroplogy. It adds up information to the main page.'''

Content evaluation

'''I'll say is a very good first draft. Information is well organized, straight to the point and easy to process. Add links to your content so people can read even more about some terms that they don't even know.'''

9/10

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

'''Yes. It's giving mostly information and context of the belief and its connection with Applied Anthropology.'''


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

'''Not at all. Seems pretty balanced.'''


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

'''Not really. Seems in the right place. Overall good consistency'''


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No. It's actually giving facts about the effects of the belief, history and background.

Tone and balance evaluation

So far solid in this section

9/10

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

'''Sure is it. Well cited and easy access to links.'''


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

Definately


 * Are the sources current?

'''Yeah. The terms and some information look up to date.'''


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

'''Yes. Diverse spectrum or authors and resources provided.'''


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

100% WORKING

Sources and references evaluation

Need some work on this section

10//10

Organization

Guiding questions:


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

'''Content seems really interesting. Easy to read and adds weight to the main topic. For a user that is new and doesn't know about the topic this is really a good start to know the subject.'''


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

'''It looks solid to me. Not Grammatical error.'''


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

'''Yes. Easy to follow along and read.'''

Organization evaluation

'''Good Job on this part. Loved it.'''

10/10

Images and Media

Guiding questions:If your peer added images or media


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

'''Yes. Example image and a picture for the history section. If you find a good example for the background would be cool.'''


 * 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?

'''Totally. Proper scale as well.'''

Images and media evaluation

9/10

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?

It's not a New article but add some new information and new sources.


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

'''Yes. Solid amount of listed resources.'''


 * 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?

Follows all the above.


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

No. I'll suggest add links to the article so people who has no idea of terms or context have an idea.

New Article Evaluation

'''Not a new article but looks like as if is one. Over all good.'''

9/10

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


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

'''Good so far. Just need some final touches and It can turn out really good. Good so far for being a rough draft.'''


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Information, Structure, Content, Resources.


 * How can the content added be improved?

'''Adding external links, Pictures if possible regarding specific key point on "The Man's Burden". Not a must but can be good to add.'''

Overall evaluation

'''Really liked this draft. Easy to read, simple, visually appealing and well structured. Final touches and should be good to go.'''

9/10