Jump to content

User:MicahLCCBIOL/Nototrichium divaricatum/Srwilson808 Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General info

[edit]
Whose work are you reviewing?

MicahLCCBIOL

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:MicahLCCBIOL/Nototrichium divaricatum
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Nototrichium divaricatum

Evaluate the drafted changes

[edit]

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? When comparing it to the new article, the lead is the same however this was added by the student.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead has a very concise sentence introducing the native plant.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead contains everything.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is well written and dense with information while staying short.

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added was relevant.
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No it does not.

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? Yes.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there is not.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the information was shared appropriately.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? For most yes, but there should be more.
  • Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
  • Are the sources current? Yes, however there is one from 1999.
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
  • 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.) No, the author wrote with neutral sources.
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Article is interesting and encapsulates needed information. The article flows well with a good order of information. Make sure to cite after an informative sentence is all.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:MicahLCCBIOL/Nototrichium_divaricatum/Srwilson808_Peer_Review&oldid=1261231958"