User:Miashang4/Hedge (linguistics)/Mmicah55 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? (provide username) mollyanne99 sola28
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mollyanne99/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, and it does so in a way that improves upon the original article.
 * Hedges and their uses
 * 1.1Epistemic hedges
 * 1.2Hedges in different languages
 * 1.3Hedges in fuzzy language
 * 1.4Evasive hedging
 * 1.5Politeness
 * 1.6Incorrect usage of hedges
 * 2See also
 * 3References
 * 4Citations
 * 5External links
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The article is broken down into these sections:
 * Epistemic hedges
 * Hedges in different languages
 * Hedges in fuzzy language
 * Evasive hedging
 * Politeness
 * Incorrect usage of hedges
 * The lead, does not however, make reference to these sections:
 * Hedges in different languages
 * Hedges in fuzzy language
 * Incorrect usage of hedges
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Everything in the lead is elaborated upon in the rest of the article. The addition of using hedging to define category membership is also briefly mentioned (which is later addressed in what is to be added to the article body)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise throughout
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise throughout

Lead evaluation
Great, make sure the lead briefly mentions everything that is to be talked about in the article while maintaining concision.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, hedges as category membership
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The book from Taylor from which the addition to the article is inspired, Linguistic Categorization, is from the 1989.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The example following "For example" is still missing. It would be good to include some examples.

Content evaluation
Good, include examples.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, this adds to the article by presenting an unrepresented view.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, no argument is being made.

Tone and balance evaluation
Excellent, no argument is being made. Just the facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, Taylor Linguistic Categorization
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Is there more literature on hedges used in linguistic categorization?
 * Are the sources current? 1989
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The bibliography is yet unfinished and lacks links.

Sources and references evaluation
Finish bibliography, see if more sources might help you (check the chapter from Taylor to see who he might reference).

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Good. When including examples, be concise and do not strive to argue one way or another. The examples should help you to make the fact you are stating about hedges as categorical membership as clear as possible (not necessarily convincing).

Images and Media (N/A)
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 (N/A)
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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, nothing on hedging and categorization was mentioned prior to the edits.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Well written, clear, concise. Sets itself up well to provide some clarifying examples.
 * How can the content added be improved? Include examples.

Overall evaluation
Great job! Stay concise