User:Vazi97/Myelin basic protein/ExasperatedOctopus Peer Review: Difference between revisions
Did it |
Got rid of excess structuring |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
=== 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 14: | ||
=== 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 19: | ||
=== 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 24: | ||
=== 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 29: | ||
=== 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 34: | ||
=== 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 39: | ||
=== 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 04:18, 10 December 2020
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Vazi97
- User:Vazi97/sandbox
Lead
[edit]Lead evaluation
[edit]Since you didn't touch the lead, I don't have much to say here. I'm sure it's fine, the one that is there is pretty extensive. You could maybe add a sentence about the structure in the lead, to make sure people know the information is there.
Content
[edit]Content evaluation
[edit]The content is relevant to the topic, up to date, and pretty cohesive. The only problem might be that you used a whole bunch of jargon, which isn't necessarily a problem, but you might want to go through and eplain things a little more simply.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The content is neutral, doesn't have any outrageous claims, and avoids under or overrepresenting anything. Again, the only issue with tone is that it reads like it came directly out of a scientific journal, which I think Wikipedia is trying to avoid.
Sources and References
[edit]Sources and references evaluation
[edit]It doesn't look like you actually used all of your sources yet, so either you're not done or you've forgotten to label some things. The sources you did link seem legitimate and helpful, and I'm sure they're everything you need to cover the topic.
Organization
[edit]Organization evaluation
[edit]The subsection you decided to add seems appropriate, and adds important information to the article. I think you put it in an appropriate spot, it wouldn't have worked under another subsection. The real question is, where are you going to put it in the article? Where it ends up will determine its effect on the entire article.
Images and Media
[edit]Images and media evaluation
[edit]I see no image, I can't help you here.
Overall impressions
[edit]Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall, this seems like an excellent addition to the article. It's a little complex, word wise, but adds important information that will increase the quality of the article. Just look at adding in your sources, and making sure the language doesn't get too weighed down for people to follow. Good job!