User talk:SRS200

Welcome!
Hello, SRS200, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam 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. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Collaborative Leadership peer review
Article Comprehensiveness

Details	Notes a. Content •	Does the lead section (first paragraph) of the article include a useful and clear overview of the topic/summary of the article’s main points? •	What are the key points of the article as you understand them? •	Does the contribution include a sufficient amount of information for the topic and a reasonable outline for the material that fully covers the core material, relevant issues, and key debates? •	Are the points well supported by evidence with sufficient references and analysis? b. Thesis and analytic focus •	Does the article focus on a clear topic? •	Does it include detailed scholarly support (where appropriate)? c. Representativeness •	Does the contribution consider a variety of perspectives rather than relying on just the point of view of one or two scholars? •	Does the contribution take an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view? A.	Content -The lead section simply states in one sentence a definition of what collaborative leadership is. I suggest elaborating in a few more sentences a overview of what the article is about.

-By the section headings I understand this article to simply define what collaborative leadership is, and how it came about.

-The article does include a sufficient amount of information. The outline/ intro needs to be expanded.

-For the information supplied, I believe that more sources could be used.

B.	Thesis and analytic focus -Yes, I do believe that the article focuses on a clear topic.

-I believe that this information possess scholarly information, but as stated above, I believe that more sources could be used and sited.

C.	Representatives -As stated above the contribution does not offer a lot of sources, which I feel is directly related to offering a variety of perspectives.

-The contribution does take an appropriate tone to provide competing information from the sources used.

Sourcing

Details	Notes •	Are all claims supported where appropriate with references? •	How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? •	Are sources represented accurately, with references following an approved form? •	Is language precise, so that sources do no overstate claims and represent the nature of studies and the evidence provided? •	Does the article contain un-sourced opinions or value statements? -While yes the claims are supported with references where needed, the article also contains a lot of information that is not sited.

-The references are reliable, yet I feel that the contribution could use more sources.

-Sources are represented accurately and do follow the appropriate form.

-Yes language is precise.

-Yes I do feel that the article contains information that is considered more of an opinion.

Neutrality

Details	Notes •	Does the article have a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints? •	Does the article avoid stating opinions as facts? •	Does the article avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts? •	How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance? -Yes the article does have a neutral point of view, and seems to evenly place weight on different topics.

-Yes, I feel that the article does avoid stating opinions as facts.

-Yes the articles avoids stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

-The sections each seem to be given the same treatment, but as stated in the first section, there were no key points identified.

Readability

Details	Notes a. Language •	How well written is the entry? •	Are sentences carefully crafted to be clear, avoid passive voice and grammatical errors? •	Has the entry been proofread to remove typos, wording errors, misspellings, etc.? •	Is the entry accessible to Wikipedia's broad audience, including people from different educational levels, backgrounds, nationalities, and expertise in English? •	Is complex language avoided when simple words and sentences will express the same idea clearly? b. Organization and style Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places?

•	Does it have a clear focus and is it well organized? •	Are the paragraphs well structured? c. Formatting •	Has the submitted entry followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia?

Section organization: Does the lead section have no section headings?

Links: Does the entry link to a wide variety of other entries? Are there sufficient links to relevant related topics? d. Illustrations •	Does the article include appropriate images where possible? •	Are these images used in accordance with the image use policy? •	Are the images appropriately captioned? -	The entry is well written.

-Yes, the sentences are carefully crafted to be clear and free of grammatical errors.

-Yes, the entry was proofread and free of errors.

-Yes, the article is accessible to Wikipedia’s broad audience.

-Yes, the complex language was avoided and simpler terms were used to reach a broad audience.

b. Organization and style

-Yes the articles structure is clear. The group did use appropriate headings, but lack of images and diagrams.

-Yes the focus is clear, and it is well organized.

-The paragraphs are well structured.

c. Formatting

-Yes, the submitted entry has followed the proper guidelines and is formatted correctly.

-The lead section did not have a section heading, but it was nothing more than a definition, and did not contain key points for the article.

-There are some other links available that are linked from this page.

D.	Illustrations. -	There are no images in this document. -	The remainder of these questions in this section are not valid, because there are no illustrations in this article.

Open-ended feedback

Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why?

This group has expanded the information of this topic, but as stated above there are some changes that can be made to improve the article even more.

Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs? I think that the article needs to have clarified key points and more so an introduction that states the objectives of the article and what can be found within it, rather than just simply a definition of the term. Secondly I believe that the source and citations need to be clarified.

SRS200 (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)