User:Leinaala03/Mad Girl's Love Song/Hmf58 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?

Leinaala03

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leinaala03/Mad_Girl%27s_Love_Song?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Mad Girl's Love Song

Evaluate the drafted changes

This was a super cool draft! I really enjoyed reading/learning about Sylvia Plath. For my peer review, I’ll section out changes I think would be great in an organized list form. Here it is:

LEAD:

This lead is pretty solid. I like that it’s condensed and gives specific examples/information. Awesome! However, I have a few ideas that I think will allow you to expand and also give the rest of the article a clear framework. To begin, I think some background context/information could really add to this lead. What was the time period like? This might give us a clear idea of how the public received the poem without giving an opinionated explanation or stance. My final piece of advice for the lead is to make sure that everything that you want in the body of the article should be referenced in some way in the lead. You could definitely draw on your “inspirations” section for example. Let me know if that makes sense! Otherwise I think this is really strong.

THEMES AND SYMBOLISM / CONSCIOUSNESS AND MADNESS:

I am SUPER interested and impressed by these sections. However, I’m a little worried that you’re teetering on the edge of an opinionated analysis rather than sticking to a more formal/fact based article. While I think these sections have really strong aspects, I would continue with being aware that addressing certain themes can come across as interpretive. For example, the part about religion/mental state doesn’t seem to be backed up by a source, but I could be wrong. It’s super cool and well written though so I want to see if there’s a way to keep it in or change the wording etc.

INSPIRATIONS:

This is a SUPER cool idea for a section. I ACTUALLY LOVE IT. I wouldn’t have thought of this so this is super cool to see. I think this is a great way to add to the article as long as your examples are backed up by facts you’ve gathered from other sources (which, right now, seems to be the case). I think this section is a great example of balancing factual info with analysis.

REFERENCES:

In general like I said before, make sure everything can be backed up! Which I think you are doing beautifully.

AWESOME WORK!!!