User:Drpencil9/Howard Besser/He4150 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
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?

Yes, the lead has been update to reflect the addition content.


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

Yes, the lead includes a quality opening sentence.


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

Yes. The article includes a brief description.


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

No.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Yes. the lead is concise and detailed but not overly

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes. The addition content is relevant.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes the additional content is up to date.


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

Not exactly content but format. The body should probably be separated into multiple paragraphs of topics and subtopics.


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

No. I do not believe so.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes.


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

No, the article is neutral.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No. its well balanced.


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

No the article is neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Yes. The content is well referenced.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes.


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

Yes, as far as I can tell.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes. the sources are current/


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

I am not sure.


 * 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.)

Not that I can find.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes all the links I tested were functioning.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

The content is well written, but the format of one giant body paragraph need to be separated


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

Not that I have found.


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

The lead looks great, but the body section is only one paragraph and needs to be reorganized to create a clearer section that is easy to read.

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?

--


 * 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?

The content has improved the article, but the format needs to be organized to create a body with visible topics.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The additional information and references to an originally small article is the strength in the additions to the article.


 * How can the content added be improved?

The organization of the body paragraph into separate topics paragraphs would do wonders.