User:Luxiiinyu/Salt Springs, Syracuse/Mdivestea Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jessica1419 & Luxiiinyu.

Link to draft you're reviewing


 * User:Jessica1419/Salt Springs (Syracuse, New York)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Salt Springs, Syracuse

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.)

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, they have added a lot more context on this neighborhood in their lead.


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

Yes, it provides a great general overview of the topic.


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

The lead does not cover the article's major sections.


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

Yes, it speaks about the salt industry in Syracuse, but it does not have a section dedicated to that history.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It seems like it might contain too much specific details about the salt industry and this could be better placed in its own section.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, all of the information speaks about things related to this neighborhood.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, it includes up-to-date information, including findings from the 2020 census. It references other updated information, such as a 2023 speech from the mayor of Syracuse.


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

The community services section at the bottom feels unnecessary, and the point about needing public transportation to get around seems better suited for the “transportation” section.


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

Yes, the article covers this neighborhood that has a majority Black population.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Overall, the article was neutral.


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

There may be a slightly biased statement in the “Major Concerns” section, but otherwise it was mostly neutral.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoints are mostly description based without going too deeply down one side.


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

No, it does not attempt to sway the reader one way or the other.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


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

There were a number of sources missing, for example in the transportation section where there is only one source cited. Sources could be better cited in the demographics section as well.


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

Yes, they accurately reflect these sources.


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

The sources could go deeper, especially since three of the seven sources are from Syracuse government websites.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, they are up to date.


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

I think the sources could have been more diverse.


 * 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.)

It seems that there could be more articles or scholarly sources involved, rather than just official websites.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The links are operational.

Organization

Guiding questions:


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

Yes, it is easy to read.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I did not see any obvious errors.


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

Yes, there are organized sections.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, there are multiple images.


 * Are images well-captioned?

They are captioned, but not in extreme detail.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

I am unsure.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes, they all complement the text.

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?

The article is longer and more complete. It added more context to this neighborhood.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

It is easy to read, concise, and organized.


 * How can the content added be improved?

More thoroughly researched and cited information about this neighborhood would be helpful.

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

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.