User:Sphung11/Onewheel/Sarahdanes Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
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?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

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?
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?

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Sphung11

Link to draft you're reviewing
(No draft link found so I'm assuming the article was directly edited and will peer review that)

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

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

- lead reflects current content of the article

- lead is concise and clearly explains the article topic

- lead does not include a description of the articles major sections

- first sentence can be made more concise as it is quite wordy, and provides information about the use of the onewheel that is unnecessary in the lead. it may not be necessary to include that the onewheel is often described as a electric skateboard right after it has already been explained

Content

- the current content in the article, especially what was recently added (as shown in the "view history" page) is all relevant to the topic at hand

- content is up to date

- all content included is relevant and needed

- the article does not deal with an topic that is historically underrepresented

Tone and balance

- article is neutral

- no biased claims are made

- article does not overrepresent or underrepresent information

- content added does not persuade the reader in any way

Sources and References

- the sentence "Future Motion Inc. was first headquartered in Mountain View, California" is not cited, and this information cannot be found in the source referenced in the sentence following this one

- about half of the sources in the article are from other articles that are advertising this product so information from these articles may be biased

- content accurately reflects the sources info

- sources are thorough and current

- diverse sources are present however some may be biased as explained above

- other less biased sources are available on the web

- links are available and work

Organization

- content added recently, and previous content is well written

- minor grammar errors are present for example in the second sentence of the lead the word "riders" should be written as "rider's" (correct noun form)

- additionally commas are present in some places where they are not needed

- content and sections are well organized

Images and Media

- images and media were not added

- one image present from previous contributions

- image is well captioned

- the image enhances understanding of the topic and is positioned off to the right of a paragraph in a visually appealing way

- the image adheres to wikipedia's copyright guidelines

Overall Impressions

- recent additions to the article have made it more complete

- added content can be improved by finding info from more reliable sources - probably the biggest issue with this article

Feedback:

- article is very well organized, neutral and well written

- article is simple, but still includes all relevant and needed content to thoroughly explain this topic

- IMPORTANT: find more reliable sources as much of the information in the article is from sources that seem biased

- the first sentence in the lead can also be edited to be less wordy and only include necessary info

- minor grammar errors should be corrected

- for my own article I will ensure that my sources are unbiased and reliable as well as this is very important