User:BellaRoseMo/Ballintubber Abbey/KD455 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?

BellaRoseMo

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

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead is short and to the point without excessive information. I do think that it might be beneficial to add a sentence reviewing the major sections of History and Architecture.

Content

The content is relevant to the article and up-to-date with out any missing content. It does not cover historically underrepresented populations or topics or Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

The content added seems neutral with no heavy bias towards any position or persuasion of opinion. Sources seem to be evenly distributed without a focus on one specific view point.

Sources and References

After checking the four new sources that were added they seem to be reliable and up-to-date. For content reflection and sourcing the article describes the information acurately with sources attached to each piece of information. I do not know if there would be better sources because the sources come from national archives, a published magazine, and the abbey's trust. The links also all work.

Organization

The content does not seem to have any grammatical or spelling errors in it. It is clear and concise by being separated in to sections for History and Architecture of Ballintubber Abbey with subsections on Introduction and Renovations.

Images and Media

The images and media added greatly benefit the overall understanding of the article and contribute in a visually appealing manner. Their captions are short and clear descriptions that do not take away from the overall image and article. As far as I can tell they seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations since nearly all of them are from Wiki Commons.

Overall ImpressionsMy overall impression is that the additions made to the Ballintubber Abbey Wiki Page has greatly improved the article. It is certainly more complete with the addition of renovation information and images, with those being the article's greatest strengths. The only content that I think could be improved is the Lead section with a small summary of the article overall added.