User:Neg78/Coaching/Icy500 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Neg78

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neg78/Coaching
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)

Lead

·       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

·       Does the Lead include a brief description of the article’s major sections? Yes

·       Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No

·       Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise.

Content

·       Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes

·       Is the content added up-to-date? No

·       Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

·       Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresent population of topics. Yes, article deals with Wikipedia equality gaps.

Tone and Balance

·       Is the content added neutral? Yes, is neutral.

·       Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, heavily biased towards a particular position.

·       Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented? Yes, some viewpoints are underrepresented.

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

Sources and References

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

·       Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes

·       Are the sources through – i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

·       Are the sources current? All sources are not current.

·       Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, written by diverse spectrum, but does not include historically marginalized individuals where possible.

·       Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

·       Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they work.

Organization

·       Is the content added well-written – i.e., is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, content is well written. It is concise and easy to read.

·       Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, grammatical or spelling errors.

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

Images and Media

·       Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images.

·       Are images well-captioned? There are no images.

·       Do all images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations? There are no images.

·       Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images.