User:LyssBlyss/Dona Bailey/Vivrantfran88 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? (LyssBlyss)

Link to draft you're reviewing:User:LyssBlyss/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, the lead has been updated.

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

Yes, it does.

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

No, it doesn’t.

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

Yes, it does.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise and clearly stated.

Lead evaluation

The lead for programmer, Dona Bailey is a great introduction to what I will learn about her.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content is relevant to the topic.

Is the content added up-to-date?

The content is up-to-date, I skimmed through the References.

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

I would have liked to see more back history of Dona Bailey, more detail on her accomplishments in the video game world.

Content evaluation

Overall, an informative article on Dona Bailey that is clear and easy to read. Maybe another section or two.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

The content is neutral based as it hits all the major points of her professional career.

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

No, there’s no claims that appear to be heavily biased.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There viewpoints are clearly represented, would just like to see more viewpoints from other angles.

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

No, it doesn’t do that.

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall, the article has a neutral tone and is evenly distributed for the content provided.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

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

Yes, the article has reliable sources.

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

Yes, they are informative sources.

Are the sources current?

Yes, all of the sources are within the last 5-6 years

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links are fully operating.

Sources and references evaluation

The sources provided for this article are informative and reliable.

Organization

Guiding questions:

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

Content is very easy to read and understand.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I didn’t see any grammatical and spelling errors.

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

Yes, very well organized.

Organization evaluation

This article on Dona Bailey is concise, clear and neutral. It hits all the information we would want to know based on the lead.

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?

Images and media evaluation

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The content added has improved the overall quality of the article. The article now seems to be more informative compared to the original. There’s information that’s there now that gives us a more clear understanding of who Dona Bailey is.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The strengths of the content added is that I know more back history of her time spent at Atari and her contributions to the company. Another strength is that you stated her more current work after her hiatus to help with family.

How can the content added be improved?

The content could have another section or two so that I could learn more of Dona Bailey. Maybe a section on her passion for programming, teaching and in what ways she utilizes her College degrees.

Overall evaluation

Overall, compared to the original article and information provided, I think this article works well. It hits the main points of Dona Bailey’s timeline of careers. Again, informative and concise, I would just want to maybe read up on a little more information on her, if accessible.