User:Laurengordon4/Journalism/Jhulty Peer Review

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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?

Laurengordon4

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laurengordon4/Journalism?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Journalism

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead:

With regards to the lead, I would seriously reconsider the ways in which the page came to their conclusions regarding what should be in the first sentence. It seems like the editor who wrote this just changed a few words around off of the Britannica source, and should be corrected on the grounds of plagiarism.

College Section:

I think this is a good section that needs to be included within regards to the topic of journalism. College degrees are becoming ever important in today's workforce, almost a prerequisite, and it will be advantageous for readers to here about the various programs and history of journalism and education. This is actually the kind of section that I am adding to my article on film criticism. However, I feel that in the sentence. " As it is a very popular degree in 2021, the first school of Journalism opened as part of the University of Missouri in 1908", you seem to have either lost your train of thought or combined two different sentences as it seems to link the current state of journalism education and the history of it. I also believe that the sentence, " If one just wanting to heighten their skills as a journalist" could use some grammatical work to get it more concrete and concise. If you want to include more information, you could also consider research into the curriculum featured within these programs.

Sources:

The first source listed seems legit so far as reading the about page and finding the author has experience in literature. The second source however seems "bloggish" and features a lot of in text advertisements. I'm sure there would be lots of reputable sources that would generate the same information listed in this one. Source three that is being used is also a reputable source and all sources say what you say that they say. The Britannica source used in the lead is also a well known and reputable source.

Tone:

I think the informative tone is great within your college article, it just may need some touching up and grammatical work to make the ideas within it more concise.