User:MarcoGirl/User:Strudel3/sandbox/StaticOrc 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?

Strudel3

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Strudel3/sandbox
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Mechanism of action of aspirin

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead:

- Good introductory sentence, covers what Aspirin is and explains what it is used for.

- The lead does describe what will be more extensive in later sections.

- No information that doesn't come up in the article, information in the lead is all relevant.- Some of the descriptions of the implementation of Aspirin feel a little too extensive for a lead section.

Content:

- Content looks to be relevant to the subject.

- Looks up-to-date from looking at sources.

- Content looks to be incomplete at the time of making this review, but this is a first draft.

Tone and Balance:

- All content added is neutral and factual.

- No biases seen in this article.

- All viewpoints of the subject seem to be addressed so far, again the draft is seemingly not complete yet.

- No persuasion in the article, just informative content and tone.

Sources and References:

- Most sentences are sourced, all new content is seemingly backed up by a source.

- Sources given reflect the information within the article.

- All sources are from books/databases, and they reflect the available information on the topic.

- Some sources are older, however using older sources for this subject I believe won't supply outdated or misinformation, due to the subject.

- Sources coming from a spectrum of different authors

- These sources provided seem to be some of the best places to get information from, doesn't seem to be any "better" source.

- Links seem to be in working order.

Organization:

- I noticed only one grammatical error in the lead section, however besides that the article is clear and easy to follow.

- Seems well-organized at the time of making this review, however the titles of subjects within the articles' could be less wordy. The Header of the article also says the supposed title of the article along with "Draft."

Images and Media:

- Images used are good visual aids for what the article is informing one of. Looks to be placed in the right areas, matching the content it is expanding upon.

- Images are well-captioned.

- Seems to adhere to all copyright regulations.

- Images are visually appealing and as said above, are in the right places to match the information related to the picture.

Overall/Notes:

- This article is super informative, and I feel no bias when reading it. I like the way things are organized so far.

- Almost everything is sourced which is great.

- I feel that after editing this article, it will feel more complete than prior, based on reading the original article.

- As said above, the information is easy to digest and well written.

- Overall very good, seems like this article is on track to becoming a good edit to an existing article. I would work on making sure every sentence has a proper source and changing up the subject titles.