User talk:Cazeditor1

Welcome!
Hello, Cazeditor1, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

EALC-110 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? (provide username)

Cazeditor1

Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Cazeditor1/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No, however the information he put in doesn't need to added in the lead

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?

No

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, however, the lead is very short

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise and could use more information

Lead evaluation

Overall, the lead is adequate but is in need of further information

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The content added is adequate

Content evaluation

The content added is fine, although there are some typos and grammatical mistakes.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No

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

No

Tone and balance evaluation

Tone is neutral and credible

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

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

Yes

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes

Are the sources current?

Yes

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Sources are good and he has provided English and Korean links.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, it provides concise information

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

The word "performs" should be "performed" because it already happened. Also "2uary 12" should be removed as it is a typo.

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

Yes, the new info is consistent

Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes

Are images well-captioned?

Yes

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes

Images and media evaluation 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 all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. 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? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The content has shown the groups recent activity but I think the full article needs more information

What are the strengths of the content added?

It added needed updates to what the group has been doing.

How can the content added be improved?

Fix the typos and grammatical mistakes

Overall evaluation

For what was added, it was good with minor mistakes. Like I said though, I think the articles lead could use more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanakaSho2 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)