User:AlbertWhimsey/Urbania (media group)/EthanBold 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?

Jeanne - @AlbertWhimsey

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AlbertWhimsey/Urbania (media group)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbania_(groupe_m%C3%A9dia):She did a translation of this french page.

Evaluate the drafted changes

Summary sentences at the beginning of the article: They are well translated and provide the needed information. All three of the lines could use a period at the end.

In the Story section of your article, when you talk about the start of the French branch of Urbania, there are some mistakes in the structure of the sentence. The rest of the section is very beautifully translated, and I think the only thing that could be added would be some wikipedia links when known people are mentioned (when possible of course, as I assume that some of these people might not have an English Wikipedia page). Some people such as Justin Trudeau could be linked to a page. Also I noticed that you could change "Mohamed Ali" (which is the French writing) for Muhammad Ali and link it to his page, as that is the way it is written in english.

In the Médias section: First, I was wondering if the choice to keep this term in French was on purpose. Since it is a french media, I would understand in some way the choice to keep the french term for the section, but I was still wondering if it was just an error or a choice. This section is well translated, there are only some little mistakes of punctuation (I would add some commas in some places), and the word "design" is written twice in the third line. I really liked that there was some information added to the english page, regarding some medias (Dehors and Mollo).

In the Urbania Productions section: Once again, the translation is really well made, I think some Wiki links could be added, and the titles of shows in French could be put in italics (ex. Montréal en 12 lieux).

I really like that both the Magazines and TV productions lists made it to the English page and have a similar visual structure to the French one. I even think that the representation for the TV productions easier on the eyes than the French one.

In the Digital Productions section: you can translate the ONF to the National Film Board (NFB), they are the same. I really like that you added some explanation about the FortMcMoney project.

In the Distinctions section: First, I would maybe translate this section to Awards or a word more in that vein as I think that that was the intent in the French page. I don't think that distinction in French and in English mean the same thing. The section is well translated otherwise, I only noticed some missing periods at the end of some lines.

Overall, the article is well translated and well structured. I really appreciate that some information was even added to some sections, and I think it will help the readers of this page better understand the subject; as the original page is in French, some references are not the same between English and French speakers. You did a very good job!