User:Kelseycluett/Physical disability/TaliaSnow5 Peer Review

= Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org peer review = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search {| class="wikitable" 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:
 * Peer review
 * Peer review

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?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kelseycluett


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * N/A
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Physical disability

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Kelseycluett, here is my peer review of the article, Physical Disability, you are editing. I agree that the article has a ton of content gaps, and more citations need to be added to make the information appear more reliable.

Lead

The article's lead section is very minimal and lacks many aspects that make a good lead section. I would recommend including more detail about what the page entails.

Content

The information is relatively up-to-date; however, much more information could be added here. I would recommend adding more types of physical disabilities such as arthritis, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, etc. There is plenty of content missing, and you could go into greater depth on the causes of each specific physical disability.

Tone and Balance

The information provided appears to be written from a neutral perspective and does not try to persuade readers.

Sources and References

Not all of the information is backed up with relevant scholarly sources. This is something you could add to make the information more reliable. A few of the references could also be updated to more reliable and newer sources.

Organization

The content provided is well-organized; however, the information is not well written, and there are a few grammatical errors.

Images and Media

There is not one image available on this page.

There is a lot of content gaps on this page. You can improve the already existing writing, add more citations, add images, more subtitles, and new information. The Talk page discusses what needs to be added, and they recommend talking about the stigma around physical disabilities. I would recommend discussing more types of physical disabilities, how they are caused, the treatments available, government programs, student support programs, etc.