User:2020sEra/Style guide/KLHates 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 edit

Whose work are you reviewing?

2020sEra

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:2020sEra/Style guide
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Style guide

Evaluate the drafted changes edit

Lead edit

Hello!

The lead has not been edited, as far as I can tell. So, my comments will pertain to the original article, and please take my comments as suggestions/things to think about.

For the first paragraph, I appreciate the use of bolding and defining . I think the first reference could be improved from the Guardian, so I'd search for a peer reviewed, academic source defining what a style guide is. Here is an idea for a new reference: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26464421 The lead is a little too conversational for my liking, specifically sentences like "although that term also has multiple other meanings." Additionally, there are a lot of longer sentences. I think splicing some sentences to give the lead a bit more 'rhythm' would be helpful. Overall, the first paragraph effectively defines and clarifies what a style guide and many of the related terms like 'style sheet.'

I really like the second paragraph. It helps redirect people who are looking for something more specific, and it concisely informs the user of the many purposes of style guides. Imo, there is nothing that needs to be changed about the language. The only concern I have is the lack of references in this section, especially when there are broader statements being made like "For translations, a style guide may be used to enforce consistent grammar choices such as tenses, formality levels in tones, and localization decisions such as units of measurements." I'd browse JSTOR and other academic sources for references for this section.

The third paragraph is short, however there is a lot that could be improved. The first sentence is extremely long, and I think it could be broken into 2 or 3 sentences. It took me two re-reads to understand what that sentence was trying to communicate, so some copy editing is needed there. Here is an idea of how it could be changed, though even this could be more clear:

"Style guides are specialized for various uses and audiences. Style guides can be for general use of a broad public audience, or for students, scholars, and professionals of different academic disciplines, medicine, journalism, the law, government, business, and specific industries."

I like the definition of house style, however it needs a reference. Later in the article, it could be helpful to offer an example of a house style guide, or redirect to another wikipedia page with more information (if there is one).

Overall, there is a lot this lead does right. It is balanced and neutral, it helps narrow down the topics and focuses of the article, and it is well organized. However, there could be improvement by:

Incorporating more peer reviewed, diverse, academic references
Simplifying and splicing longer sentences for clarity and concision
If a topic is not redirected to a relevant Wikipedia article, ensure that it is included later in your article (e.g. house style).

I am excited to see your edits, great job!