User:Egapaa/Shark tourism/JenniferESims Peer Review

Peer review
General info Whose work are you reviewing? Addisongordon

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Addisongordon/sandbox Lead:

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Your rough draft was more of a proposal of what you're going to change in the article. So when you rewrite the lead to the article, make sure you add a portion about the overpopulation of sharks and people in the ocean. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead on the original article doesn't summarize the actual article, it's just a definition of shark tourism. Here you could fix it to where it works as a better introduction of the article, including the things you add. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. (see last q.) Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. It talks about the iDive network, which I didn't see mentioned in the actual article. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise, just done incorrectly. (original article) Lead evaluation This is essentially an evaluation of the original article's lead. It was mainly just a definition of shark tourism, along with some extra information that could be beneficial but wasn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. So there's a lot of opportunities in the lead alone to expand and improve content. Content

Guiding questions: (reviewing the content you proposed to add) Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In the original article, we discussed that the section on the Great White shark was disproportionately large as compared to the limited amount of information on shark tourism itself. Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? The content you proposed to add could come off as biased unless you give evidence (statistics maybe that explain why the ocean is damaged by the overpopulation of sharks?) from a reliable source. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, not really. 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? No. Tone and balance evaluation 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? Yes. Are the sources current? Yes. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? You haven't actually added the content, but the proposal explaining what you want to add is clear. :) 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? It made sense in the proposal. Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The original article has some good pictures. Are images well-captioned? Yes. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? As far as I know. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. Images and media evaluation 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? Yes. How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources seem sufficient. Not sure if it accurately represents all the literature because I'm not familiar with the topic. 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? Yes. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes. 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 content added seems like it was necessary for the completeness of the article. It seems well thought out. How can the content added be improved? I'd be able to answer this question once the article has been written. Overall evaluation The proposed addition was good, and there's a lot of room for improvement on the actual article.