User talk:Jfinlay8/Visual metaphor

Peer review

General info:

Whose work are you reviewing? User:Jfinlay8

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jfinlay8/Visual_metaphor

Lead:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -Yes, the lead includes a bit more information to be talked about in the rest of the article.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -No, I think the sentence that you added at the end of the lead was much more concise and clear. I would change the first sentence to be more straightforward.

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? -Yes, if you need to change anything though, I would keep it similar to the amount that's in your draft right now.

Content:

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? -No, but I do think that there should be more elaboration on the different types.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? -No

Tone and Balance:

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

Sources and References:

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? -I think that you definitely could use more sources to improve the content of the article. Using the available articles and journals but with a neutral tone should be beneficial for the reader to really grasp the concept.

Are the sources current? -Two of the sources are semi-current and one is fairly current, but I would definitely look for more articles that have been written recently.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? -Yes, and no.

Check a few links. Do they work? -Yes

Organization:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -Yes, but I do think the first sentence in the lead is a bit hard to follow.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -No

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

Overall evaluation: The content that you added was very beneficial to the article and overall made the article more complete. I like that you included examples to help the readers visualize that aspect, and that it was simple. One thing I would add, if you want to do this in the future, is a list of bullet points of a few examples to increase the clarity and well-roundedness of the examples for different types of readers. I honestly think you improved the article so much though! Great work! Yennilee (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Yenni! User:Yennilee I really appreciate it. I will fix up the lead, I also found it a bit hard to follow. I like the idea of bullet points but I'm not sure how I'd do that in this article. Thanks again! Jfinlay8 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)