User:Mxnicpixie/Science and technology studies/SilverScreen'sSilverLining Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mxnicpixie


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mxnicpixie/Science_and_technology_studies?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Science and technology studies
 * Science and technology studies

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.)


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
 * 2) Flags citation issues and asks for clarification where needed. It also explains key concepts in a way that is easy to understand.
 * 3) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 4) none
 * 5) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 6) I cannot think of anything that would make it better the edits seem thorough.
 * 7) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
 * 8) none
 * 9) A lead section that is easy to understand
 * 10) * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * 11) ** Yes
 * 12) * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * 13) ** Yes
 * 14) * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * 15) ** No
 * 16) A clear structure
 * 17) * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * 18) ** Presented well, no changes needed
 * 19) Balanced coverage
 * 20) * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject?
 * 21) ** yes
 * 22) * Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary?
 * 23) ** no
 * 24) * Is anything off-topic?
 * 25) ** no
 * 26) * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature?
 * 27) ** From what I can see yes.
 * 28) * Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * 29) ** No
 * 30) * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * 31) ** No
 * 32) Neutral content
 * 33) * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * 34) ** No
 * 35) * 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."
 * 36) ** No
 * 37) * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * 38) ** No
 * 39) * 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.
 * 40) ** No
 * 41) Reliable sources
 * 42) * 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?
 * 43) ** Yes
 * 44) * 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.
 * 45) ** No
 * 46) * 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!
 * 47) ** There are large chunks of unsourced material in the STS article itself that may need to be looked at but it is not clear to me whether that is the responsibility of the editor to fix or the person who initially wrote the unsourced sections.