User talk:Aajoseph12/Online disinhibition effect/Kbrower2020 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? Aajoseph12 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Aajoseph12/sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

It seems that the content added is new and relevant to online disinhibition effect. I think that there was thought put into article selection in this case. The article seems to be extremely under developed so it seems like there is a lot of opportunity for growth.

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It seems that the content added is new and relevant to online disinhibition effect. I think that there was thought put into article selection in this case. The article seems to be extremely under developed so it seems like there is a lot of opportunity for growth. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is an introductory sentence on the article page that gives a brief definition of what online disinhibition effect. I think this will suffice as an introduction sentence on a site that is predominately used for explanations of topics or events. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is an overview of the sections in the table of contents. Although there is a brief overview of the topics to be discussed I definitely feel that it could be a bit more in-depth, it is quite short. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, I dont feel that it does, if anything information would be lacking not be too much. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise Lead evaluation 4/5 Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Content evaluation 5/5 Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added doesn't even introduce a new topic but it adds to one already written about. I like that the addition adds a bit more info to the beginning of the 'classifications' portion of the article. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the claims do not seem biased or opinionated. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I actually like that this edit cut some parts of the paragraph that were unnecessary but left other that were informative. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the information provided is very neutral. Tone and balance evaluation 5/5 Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are multiple sources and they are properly referenced under the edits. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? One of the sources used is actually already used in producing the content on the wikipedia page. This means that it has already been approved by wikipedia for accuracy and relevancy. Are the sources current? Yes, both are. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? One source is produced by a university and the other is from the national library of human health. Check a few links. Do they work? Both links connected me to the source without any issues. Sources and references evaluation 5/5 Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The information is short and to the point and edits the previous article to be more concise as well. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No I edited it for both errors. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added creates a new section that is more introductory and modifies past edits to be more organized by topic. Organization evaluation 5/5 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? Images and media evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes I believe it helps to add more about classifications of the topic and adds to a part that was already created and could have used some work. What are the strengths of the content added? I think that it is informative and concise which is exactly what we are looking for. How can the content added be improved? If a little more content wanted to be added that could be helpful. Although I enjoyed the additions and some of the cuts made, the additions were only about 5 sentences all and all. I think the article could benefit from some more cuts to the old content to be replaced by this users writing. Overall evaluation 5/5

Response to Peer Review
Thanks for your feedback! I'm happy to know that my content is concise and neutral. I did edit a lot of the original content from the article I picked so I'm glad that you realized that I still kept information that was still important. I do agree that my section is still lacking and I am going to go back and add more sections so that my article is more in-depth.Aajoseph12 (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Ashley Joseph