User:Flanagan Institute Applicant/Digital hoarding/Ha1154 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ginnerz06


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ginnerz06/Digital hoarding


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Digital hoarding

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Lead:

Guiding questions:

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

''Lead has been updated. Lead is incorrectly placed below the contents section. Rewording of lead has much improved the language and feel of the article.''

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

Introductory sentence is greatly improved.

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

No, lead only mentions medical research none of the other topics.

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

No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead concise but lacks other sections of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Mostly yes.

Is the content added up-to-date?

There has been a massive clean up of the references.

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

''Overall content minimal. Large sections of the old article have been removed due to the poor quality of the original. A lot more substance is needed.''

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

Unknown.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes, The major changes have been the removal of biased language and sections.

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

No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

This article has some starting points for additional sections that are not finished.

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

''Article maintains neutral tone. There is a section of scientific studies that seems to be mostly commentary on the study. This literature review does not fit in this article.''

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

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

''Due to Wikipedia redirects I cannot access bibliography page. Significant edits have been made to the references section. Many of the older entries have been removed.''

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

''One citation in the medical condition section appears to be a direct quote. Although cited, this is considered plagiarism by Wikipedia.''

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

''The article has started to shift to factual, scholarly medical literature. This is much more current than the original source material.''

Are the sources current?

Majority of references are 2019 and newer.

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

Unknown.

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.)

''The majority of links are from professional journals. There is a lot of missing information that could be improved on. There are no references for these sections.''

Check a few links. Do they work?

''Spot check of links worked. Link #9 is partially broken.''

Organization

Guiding questions:

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

''As previously stated the bulleted list of literature review is out of place. Possibly a further reading section.''

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I was not able to detect any errors.

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

''Lead is incorrectly placed. One ill-conceived list replaces another. Other sections lack content.''

Images and Media

Relevant image was removed by user.