User:CourtneyPhelps/Mambila people /LiuXianSenCMU 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)

Courtney Phelps


 * Link to draft    you're reviewing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mambila_people

Lead

Guiding questions:


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

Yes.


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

Yes.


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

Yes.


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

Yes.


 * Is the Lead    concise or is it overly detailed?

The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation：

For the whole plan of the revision, I think there are more points the author could find to cut in.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the    content added relevant to the topic?

Yes.


 * Is the    content added up-to-date?

I’m not sure.


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

No.

Content evaluation

Actually, I could not find much content from this revision.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the    content added neutral?

Yes.


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

No.


 * Are there    viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.


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

I’m afraid not.

Tone and balance evaluation

I’m afraid that I could not give advice.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


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

Yes.


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

Sorry. Some of them cannot be found.


 * Are the    sources current?

No. Some are old.


 * Check a few    links. Do they work?

No. Some of them don’t work.

Sources and references evaluation

They are really sound references. Given significant research, the author could give great revision.

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?

No.


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

Yes.

Organization evaluation

No grammatical and spelling errors. And the revision will not ruin the organization.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


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

No.


 * Are images    well-captioned?

No images.


 * Do all images    adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

No images.


 * Are the    images laid out in a visually appealing way?

No images.

Images and media evaluation

No images and media resources.

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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


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

Yes.


 * What are the strengths    of the content added?

The revised one is more convincing.


 * How can the    content added be improved?

I think the lead could add some more detailed information into the article.

Overall evaluation

The revision is too little I think. There might be more work the lead could do.