User:Sjapatel/Glass cliff/Gobears12 Peer Review

II. Evaluate the article

Evaluate the article using the following rubric. Note, you do not need to leave comments for each question. Use the comments boxes to elaborate on notable successes or highlight key shortcomings of the article.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Images and Media
III. Overall impressions

This article, overall, is well-written and very informative. Sources are used very effectively, and their findings are condensed into clear and concise sentences. I really learned a lot from this article, so it is off to a good start.

It could benefit from a thorough proofread for grammatical and stylistic errors, some of which I have noted above. Furthermore, the first two paragraphs from the draft’s explanation section seem a little repetitive with what is already in the article, so fusing the two without repeating information would be very helpful for future readers. Different sources that reach similar conclusions could also be placed alongside each other, even if it means citing certain sources more often, to streamline the overview and explanation sections. Similarly, for some of the sources it does not seem necessary to write out the author’s names. To my knowledge, Wikipedia articles do not usually include authors’ names that person is relevant to the article later on. If someone is interested in finding out which researchers made a particular finding, they will be able to look at the citation.

~ Gobears12 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)