User:Rbwood/Tropical disease/Krishgopalan Peer Review: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Krishgopalan (talk | contribs) Began lead analysis. |
Krishgopalan (talk | contribs) Added detail. |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
==== Content evaluation ==== |
==== Content evaluation ==== |
||
The content is direct and concise, which is appreciated. The section on vector-borne diseases is well-organized and written. |
The content is direct and concise, which is appreciated. The section on vector-borne diseases is well-organized and written. The lead was quite helpful in putting the bullet points into context. |
||
In the Sexually transmitted diseases section, it might be helpful to add some more detail. A more detailed lead would be useful, as would some more detail |
|||
=== Tone and Balance === |
=== Tone and Balance === |
||
| Line 74: | Line 76: | ||
==== Images and media evaluation ==== |
==== Images and media evaluation ==== |
||
N/A |
|||
=== For New Articles Only === |
=== For New Articles Only === |
||
| Line 85: | Line 88: | ||
==== New Article Evaluation ==== |
==== New Article Evaluation ==== |
||
N/A |
|||
=== Overall impressions === |
=== Overall impressions === |
||
Revision as of 06:36, 29 April 2020
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? Rbwood
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Tropical disease
Lead
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
I think it would be helpful to include a few sentences introducing the topic a little bit more. But since the information is already concise, it shouldn't matter so much.
Content
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Content evaluation
The content is direct and concise, which is appreciated. The section on vector-borne diseases is well-organized and written. The lead was quite helpful in putting the bullet points into context.
In the Sexually transmitted diseases section, it might be helpful to add some more detail. A more detailed lead would be useful, as would some more detail
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
Organization
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
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?
- 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
N/A
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
N/A
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?