User:Hkim74/Evaporation pond/Emalone66 Peer Review

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 there is a significant difference in the lead since it was only one sentence in the original article and now has more information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it introduces the main topic well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it goes over the two main sections (this article is still really short).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and still thorough enough.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I would say yes, one source is very recent and the other one is from not too long ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It is an article that has very little formation so it is good that it has someone adding some contributions to it.

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? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * 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 Yes they seem up to date and not super outdated.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * 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.) After checking the school library database, I personally think these are good sources compared to some other ones available.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

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

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Maybe the image can be up higher to be closer to the writing and not the references.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it had a one sentence introduction and with this has a more well-rounded and complete introduction now.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is well written, concise, and well organized.
 * How can the content added be improved? The technology section of the article is also very short and could be added to using the sources from the Lead.

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
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)