This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Voverbo(talk | contribs) at 15:37, 9 March 2023(←Created page with '{{dashboard.wikiedu.org peer review/guide}} == General info == ; Whose work are you reviewing? IllyFerg/Neolithic Decline ; Link to draft you're reviewing ; User:IllyFerg/Neolithic decline ; Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) : Neolithic decline == Evaluate the drafted changes == Lead: There is not information here, so I will do my best to give some sort of direction. The lead is meant to be a sort of introduction to th...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 15:37, 9 March 2023 by Voverbo(talk | contribs)(←Created page with '{{dashboard.wikiedu.org peer review/guide}} == General info == ; Whose work are you reviewing? IllyFerg/Neolithic Decline ; Link to draft you're reviewing ; User:IllyFerg/Neolithic decline ; Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) : Neolithic decline == Evaluate the drafted changes == Lead: There is not information here, so I will do my best to give some sort of direction. The lead is meant to be a sort of introduction to th...')
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.
Lead: There is not information here, so I will do my best to give some sort of direction. The lead is meant to be a sort of introduction to the topic. So, questions you could probably answer in this section are "what was the Neolithic decline?" What populations did it effect? Why does it matter? Gloss over the possible causes for the decline, but do not go into too much detail or else you will be discrediting or crossing the line into the body of the article.
Content: The content just goes over the possible plague explanation for the decline. It has a good structure already. So, I'm not sure what could be added to that specific section. There could be some research done to see if there are other possible explanations for the decline. There could also be a section of the effects this caused to the human population.
References: The references are all recent, which is good. Recent research is typically more reliable than old research. Something that may be good, if it hasn't already been done, is just read through the sources already there and see if there is anything that could be added from them that isn't already there.
