User:Julia2006M/Twin Flames Universe/Aviator28 Peer Review

Follow their Lead: The lead is the first section of an article. It usually states the most important information about the article's subject, and gives a good overview of the rest of the article.Good leads don't get too bogged down in detail, and don't simply repeat what's in the article below. You should be able to read the lead and feel like you have a pretty good grasp of what the article is about.


 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?

Your Lead feedback to peer:

'''I believe that the information that was added really helped me understand some of the stuff within the Lead that didn’t completely make sense. Especially with this topic being such a complex topic I feel like the added detail in depth really helps to get the point across. Adding in specific examples to help to really show just what it means. Overall I feel like the Lead is structured and well organized. '''

Clear Structure: Now, let's look at the article itself. Different aspects of the article should each have their own section. The difference between sections should be easy to understand, and each statement should have a clear reason for being where it is.


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

Your Structure feedback to peer:

'''The article is well organized and I don’t see any need to change anything. The information you added throughout I think fit in perfectly with the structure of the article. The order the article goes in is a perfect order for you to not get lost within the article and understand what you are reading about.'''

Balancing Act: Wikipedia articles are summaries of pre-existing resources. They should be balanced according to the available literature. No aspect should take over too much of the article, and more well-documented viewpoints should get more space. However, a good article also presents minority viewpoints and positions.


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

Your Balancing feedback to peer:

'''Looking through the article I don’t really know much about the background of it, but I got a brief gist of what exactly it is with reading the article. Looking through the article and the contributions you made I believe that this article is well balanced and doesn’t need much more to it. It goes into many different sections and talks about each in depth.'''

Neutral Content: Wikipedia articles aim for a neutral point of view. That means they don't attempt to persuade the reader into accepting a particular idea or position.


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

Your Neutrality feedback to peer:

'''No, the article remains neutral throughout and doesn’t give the sense of a side. The article is basically just giving facts and details on a certain topic so there is no bias within it.'''

Reliable Sources: Good articles are built on good sources. When you've read the article, turn to the references section.


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

Your Sources feedback to peer:

'''Looking through the sources, I believe that they are reliable sources. They are used throughout the article as needed and provide vital information to support certain points made in the article. They all seem to tie back to a good reliable source.'''

Final Takeaways:


 * First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? What is the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article or vice versa?

Your Takeaways feedback to peer:

'''My final takeaways are overall I love the article. It is very informative and gets to the point. Especially with me not knowing much about this stuff the article really dumbs it down for me to understand. I don’t see much that could be added to this article to make it any better than it already is. Maybe add some more detail to Jeff's section but really overall it has all the information. Then I also feel like the article is all bland and is missing some pictures that can be added to add some sort of imagination to what you’re reading.'''

______________________________________________________________________________

Leave a Message: When you have reviewed your peer's article, you should leave a constructive message on their User Talk page. Leaving a message on a User Talk page is different than leaving one on the Talk page of their sandbox (remember that  every  page on Wikipedia has a Talk page), and will notify them (whereas, leaving a note on their sandbox will not). To find a user's Talk page, go to their Wikipedia User page — something like "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HistoryBuff34 ". You'll see the Talk link at the top left of the page. Click "New Section" on the Talk page and enter your message. Remember to sign with four tildes! (~)

Your Posted Message feedback to peer:

'''I really like the article you chose to edit. I don't dabble much with the topic you chose, but really just looking through that article it got me interested. So thank you for getting me into something I didn't think I would like. But really overall great article, great contributions and just make sure to see if anything else can be added to that section I mentioned before!'''

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)