User:Jimmyjohnslaser/Ion transporter/ExasperatedOctopus Peer Review: Difference between revisions
Wrote the peer review |
Got rid of superfluous structure |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Peer review == |
== Peer review == |
||
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review. |
|||
=== General info === |
=== General info === |
||
| Line 9: | Line 7: | ||
=== Lead === |
=== 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 ==== |
==== Lead evaluation ==== |
||
| Line 22: | Line 12: | ||
=== Content === |
=== 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? |
|||
* Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? |
|||
==== Content evaluation ==== |
==== Content evaluation ==== |
||
| Line 34: | Line 17: | ||
=== Tone and Balance === |
=== 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 ==== |
==== Tone and balance evaluation ==== |
||
| Line 46: | Line 22: | ||
=== Sources and References === |
=== 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? |
|||
* Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? |
|||
* Check a few links. Do they work? |
|||
==== Sources and references evaluation ==== |
==== Sources and references evaluation ==== |
||
| Line 59: | Line 27: | ||
=== Organization === |
=== 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 ==== |
==== Organization evaluation ==== |
||
| Line 70: | Line 32: | ||
=== Images and Media === |
=== 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 ==== |
==== Images and media evaluation ==== |
||
| Line 82: | Line 37: | ||
=== Overall impressions === |
=== 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? |
|||
==== Overall evaluation ==== |
==== Overall evaluation ==== |
||
Latest revision as of 04:16, 10 December 2020
Peer review
[edit]General info
[edit]- Jimmyjonslaser
- User:Jimmyjohnslaser/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead has been improved significantly, I like how you've improved it and made it clearer. I think it adds an overall cohesiveness to the section with what you've put in. It's concise and doesn't add anything that isn't already there, so I think you're good.
Content
[edit]Content evaluation
[edit]The content seems relevant, up to date, and pretty on topic overall. It isn't messing with equity gaps or anything, so I think you're doing pretty well. Good job!
Tone and Balance
[edit]Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Your tone is definitely neutral and all your information seems unbiased when you present it. There also does not seem to be any sort of over or underrepresentation, or persuasion. I don't know how you could have managed that, though.
Sources and References
[edit]Sources and references evaluation
[edit]I would go and make sure all the information you put in there is referenced properly. It looks like you've mostly got everything, but it seems like some of your facts haven't been hooked to a reference.
Organization
[edit]Organization evaluation
[edit]It is concise, clear, and easy to read,doesn't seem to have spelling errors, and seems well organized. This is just a suggestion, but perhaps you might want to put the stuff that talks about studying the ion transporters near the beginning of the article instead? I don't know if that'll make it flow better, honestly, but you could try it and see if you like it.
Images and Media
[edit]Images and media evaluation
[edit]You don't have any images, so I'm afraid I can't help you there.
Overall impressions
[edit]Overall evaluation
[edit]The article is defintely more complete, and makes more sense now, so you've done a good job! I guess the only thing you might need to work on is making sure everything is cited well, and maybe playing around with the organization a bit, but other than than I have nothing to suggest.