User:Kateconnolly02/Washington Square, Syracuse/Lilabroden3 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Kateconnolly02

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Kateconnolly02/Washington Square, Syracuse

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Washington Square, Syracuse

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect new content! It discusses where Washington Square is located, the history of the park, and some background on Syracuse

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes it does, the lead is easy to read and concise, while describing the article’s topic

• 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?

No, the lead is short and concise, so no extra information is present that is not present in the actual article

• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is very concise and not overly detailed at all, it is to the point and clear

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes it is relevant, as the content discusses a variety of topics such as the history behind Washington Square, the education, cuisine, and neighborhood growth, all topics that expand on what Washington Square is

• Is the content added up-to-date?

I believe so from reading it, but it is hard to tell because there are no sources added

• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I’m not fully sure if it is important to discuss the cuisine of Washington Square. It is definitely interesting, but I wonder if another topic would be better. I also think the significance behind Washington Square could be added, maybe in place of the cuisine section.

• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Not really, but this just may be because the topic itself does not entirely deal with historically underrepresented populations or topics. The article does discuss how Washington Square is a diverse area, but doesn’t really expand on this

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?

Yes, it seems so! The content is clear and straightforward as well

• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, as I said before, the content is neutral and as a result, there are no biases toward a particular position

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think the only viewpoint that is overrepresented is the discussion of the cuisine present in Washington Square.

• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, this article is just a straightforward discussion of what Washington Square is like, so there really isn’t room in the article to persuade a reader in one way or another

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

I’m sure it is, but these sources are not added in the article, and nothing is cited

• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

There are no cited sources, so I am not sure!

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

No sources added

• Are the sources current?

No sources added

• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

No sources added

• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

No sources added

• Check a few links. Do they work?

No sources added, so I do not know

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, it is! It is easy to read. I do think some sections could be more concise, as they are a little long

• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No it does not

• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the content is broken down into 5 well-organized sections that reflect the major points of the topic

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

N/A

• 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

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Once again, no sources are added and nothing is cited within the article so I do not know

• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

N/A

• 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 it does! There are 5 sections and it does look like similar wikipedia articles

• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

No it does not

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, I believe so! The original article is much shorter than the new one, and it mostly just describes the history of Washington Park. There is not a lot of detail in the original article, but way more detail in the new one, which is great

• What are the strengths of the content added?

I really like how the article talks about the education in Washington Square and neighborhood growth. These are interesting topics and ones I would consider a strength

• How can the content added be improved?

I think including a section on the significance of Washington Square could be really helpful and would improve the article and tie everything together well. Also, sources need to be added and information needs to be cited