|
Â
|
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
|
==General info==
|
|
==General info==
|
|
;Whose work are you reviewing?
|
|
;Whose work are you reviewing?
|
|
|
AngelicaManz
|
|
Minion125
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
;Link to draft you’re reviewing:[[Delon Hampton]]
|
|
;Link to draft you’re reviewing:[[ ]]
|
|
;Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):[[User:Minion125/Delon Hampton#References]]
|
|
;Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):[[ ]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Evaluate the drafted changes ==
|
|
== Evaluate the drafted changes ==
|
 |
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?
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.
Additional Resources
Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
AngelicaManz
- Link to draft you’re reviewing
- User:AngelicaManz/Jose Gomez-Marquez
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Jose Gomez-Marquez
Evaluate the drafted changes
[edit]
original
LDTC+ Labs could be linked
edited
At the end of the lead of the article, it says dedicated which might be true, but it does sound a bit biased
In the career and research section, it could be good to link the medical devices that he studies
His foundation makers nurse could also be linked
I like how all the research is still outlined and explained without too much fluff, but I still have a clear understanding of what his work does. It was also very convenient to see the summary of your edits. That way I could clearly see how it improved the article. There was a couple where I had not thought of the improvement while I was reading the original. It was also good that all the links and resources were listed in the correct format.
