User:TrudiJ/sandbox/peer review instructions

This content was copied from here for the purpose of amending the instructions to enhance the quality of the peer reviews in my course

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review. After the general info, you will provide one descriptive answer at the end of each section.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

For all of the following sections, the Guiding questions are provided to help you write a robust evaluation at the bottom of each guiding questions section. Do not answer the individual bulleted questions. You will be tempted to answer "yes" or "no," and that does not provide the level of detail needed to help your classmate. You want to focus on those areas of your classmate's work that need additional attention or that are done well. As you complete your peer review, consider the type of feedback that would help you the most. Brief, non-descriptive responses are not helpful.

Lead
'''Guiding questions to help you write a robust Lead evaluation at the end of this section. Do not answer these individual questions:'''


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the new content require a change to the Lead?

For these questions, consider the intent of your classmate's editing and if they are likely to have done research that would allow them to make changes as suggested:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
'''Guiding questions to help you write a robust content evaluation at the end of this section. Do not answer these individual questions:'''


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Consider the specific subject of the article. Is content sourced from older resources appropriate?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? (This may require a bit of research on your part.)
 * Are you able to understand the content added, as a non-specialist?

Tone and Balance
'''Guiding questions to help you write a robust evaluation of tone and balance at the end of this section. Do not answer these individual questions:'''


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Is the tone appropriate for an encyclopedia—not too scholarly, and not too casual?

Sources and References
'''Guiding questions to help you write a robust evaluation of sources and references at the end of this section. Do not answer these individual questions:'''


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Is the source selection thorough? Do those selected reflect the available literature on the topic? (This will require a bit of research on your part.)
 * Are the sources current?
 * Do they need to be current, given the subject matter of the article?
 * Check a few links, both within Wikipedia and outside. Do they work?

Organization
'''Guiding questions to help you write a robust organization evaluation at the end of this section. Do not answer these individual questions:'''


 * Is the content added well-written—i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized—i.e. Is it broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
'''Guiding questions to help you write a robust organization evaluation at the end of this section. Do not answer these individual questions:'''


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Is this a topic for which images or media are appropriate?
 * If so, did the article have sufficient images before your classmate started editing, or were some needed?
 * Did your classmate add some if they would be helpful?
 * 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
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 available literature on the subject? (This will require a bit of research on your part.)
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles—i.e. Does it 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?