User talk:Siffat05/Visual Ethnography

Siffat, I suggest you to expand: the history section, significant contributions, and add additional sources. Also, add a section using the key terms you identified. Teresa

General info
Whose work are you reviewing? Siffat05 Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Siffat05/Visual_Ethnography

Lead evaluation
Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: The lead provides general information about visual ethnography. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: I would start the lead with your definition of visual ethnography to follow the typical encyclopedia format. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: No, it does not. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: I would think about adding a broad introduction prior to your discussion of visual ethnography. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: It is concise.
 * I am assuming this is intended to be an entirely new article and not an addition to an already existing article in this section.

Content evaluation
Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Most of the content is relevant to the topic; the definition of the visual ethnography, historical development, current state of affairs, and significant contributors is all relevant and important. Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes, the content is very up-to-date. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: I believe the section 'Research into Visual Ethnography Area' does not belong on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance evaluation
Is the content added neutral?: Yes, all content is neutral. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No, I did not find biased claims in the article. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: No, there are not. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: No, the content is not persuasive towards a position.

Sources and References evaluation
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: Yes, they are. The sources are not formatted in Wikipedia. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: The sources appear to be broad; there is a focus on contributions from Sarah Pink. Are the sources current?: Yes, they are current. Check a few links. Do they work?: There are not any links in the article.

Organization evaluation
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content it well-written, clear, and easy to read. It follows a logical sequence. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: No, there are not grammatical or spelling errors present. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: I would consider moving 'Current State of Affairs' to the end and having 'Historical Development' and 'Significant Contributors' follow one another.

Images and Media evaluation
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: No images included. Are images well-captioned?: N/A Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?: N/A Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?: N/A

New Article Evaluation
Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?: Yes. How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?: The bibliography includes 7 articles; the body of the article relies heavily on Pink's work. 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?: The article is in Sandbox editing stages to it is unclear at this time. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?: It is not linked to other articles as far as I can tell.

Overall Impressions
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: The article provides a complete overview of visual ethnography, historical development, and significant contributors. As an encyclopedia article, it provides a great introduction to the topic. What are the strengths of the content added?: The content is clear and objective. How can the content added be improved?: I would recommend removing the section on research process, adding citations in Wikipedia's format, and adding links to other articles.

Final Words
Siffat - I really enjoyed reading your work. It is well-written and nicely presented. When I finished reading, I felt I had an overall understanding of visual ethnography. I found your writing to match the purpose of this resource. Special-educator2020 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)special-educator2020

Judy's Comments
Hello Siffat: I have just been looking at your Visual Ethnography article. This article has "good bones" as people say in construction--meaning a good foundation, but it is still very close to the class paper. I am still debating in my head: Should it be a separate article? Or, should it be a component of the Visual Anthropology article? Can you argue for your position so I will better understand your thinking. This issue comes back in the end to how you are defining visual ethnography (this is different than a list of the characteristics of the idea...I'm talking about Definition). Once we have this established, I will know how to guide you. Thanks. Judy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artful inquiry (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

From Alyssa: Hi Siffat, like Judy and several others mention above, I think it would make sense for you to decide whether or not this has the meat to be a full-fledged article. I am also not sure but could be convinced. I left my peer review on my page, so check it out in your module! Acforlando (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)