User:Gbloom99/Páginas Recolhidas/Hecjgon Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mac & George


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xX8wlK6YuD2MVkCtjkCgFuCcZiNfjJtz_21WGHW5OWE/edit?usp=sharing


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A1ginas_Recolhidas

Evaluate the drafted changes
Acho que sería bom adicionar um pouco mais de contexto sobre os contos no livro já que só disse que é um livro de contos. Sobre que são os contos? Como foram coletadas? Quais são os temas?

Também acho que é um pouco confuso a explicação de o taneiro e demagogo. São a mesma pessoa? Precisa de um alguns acentos na descrição (i.e. várias).

Acho que as descrições de O dicionário e Ideias de canário precisam começar em um novo parágrafo. Se vocês podem adicionar mais descrições para os contos sería melhor e mais detalhados.

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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Acho que precisa um pouco mais de informação para dar contexto para que tipo de livro, que tipo de contos, que tipo de coleção.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Acho que pode dar um pouco mais de informação no header.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Não
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Sim, mais precisa um pouco mais.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Sim
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Sim
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Não, mais um pouco mais de informação nos outros contos ajudaria.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Não

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Sim
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Não
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Não
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Não

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Precisa referencias no texto, não simplesmente no fim.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Não
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Precisa de links, só tem referência aos livros.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Sim
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Um pouco, sublinhado no Google Doc.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Acho que sim, mais poderia melhorar com um pouco mais de informação do autor, dos contos, do livro, etc.