User talk:WackoWyatt

Welcome!
Hello, WackoWyatt, 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) 19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review (3/6/2020)
General info Whose work are you reviewing? Wacko Wyatt Link to draft you're reviewing: User:WackoWyatt/sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, he has a lead going but it is not too long as of now Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the lead sentence has a good description on the article Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it does not but that is because the article is new and in the works, not adding onto a preexisting page Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not include information not mentioned later in the article Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? As of now it is neither, it is very simple Lead evaluation

The lead as of right now it is looking good, it is a little thin right now but that is expected for a new article and also because Everglow is a semi-new group.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is relevant to the topic Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it is up-to-date Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is some information missing but again it is because there was no preexisting page Content evaluation

The content is accurate and up-to-date, it is looking good.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes it is neutral Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are no claims that seem to be biased. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No there are not viewpoints overrepresented or underrepresented. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no it does not persuade the reader in one way or another Tone and balance evaluation

the tone and balance of the article is good.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes it is backed up by two reliable sources, the video and the website are both sources that are used a lot for articles. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do reflect the literature used for the topic. Are the sources current? Yes the sources are up-to-date Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the source links do work Sources and references evaluation

the sources and information looks good.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes it is easy to read and clear Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No there are not errors in the article Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes it is well-organized Organization evaluation

the organization looks good, easy to follow, and well-organized.

Images and Media

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

there are no photos as of now but that can easily change.

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? the article has 2 reliable primary sources that help build the article but it does not have any article independent from the subject How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? the article's list of sources does represent the content of the article, but it is not exhaustive. 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? yes the article has the subheadings needed to make it clear. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? the article does not have any other articles linked but that can be changed easily. 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 article does not look complete but that is okay since was just created. What are the strengths of the content added? the content explains the idol and is the foundation for some really interesting information about Mia. How can the content added be improved? just needs to add more information and sources but other than that the article looks good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabella1202 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)