User:Hollandaisecraver/Sophie Clarke/Sarahamdani02 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?

Hollandaisecraver

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1182896930&title=Sophie_Clarke_(healthcare_consultant)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Survivor: South Pacific

Evaluate the drafted changes

The overall article is well structured and is backed up by many sources .However the lead section feels empty and doesn't encompass all the other sections. Try to add the information of your sections to the lead section. It does talk about her appearances in tv shows but it doesn't mention her personal life, her reception and her filmography .

The content is good and more than enough for all the remaining sections. It's up to date and you did a good job at arranging the main points ,you added all the necessary plots, sub-plots and timelines for each section. Maybe add where she was born (her hometown) in the personal life section and add a external link to where we can watch the tv shows and the tv shows' official websites. You can add fan's reactions to her appearance on the tv show ,did she change?

The tone and balance is neutral and there is no bias , I like how you managed to convey the reason why she lost in a fair way.

Sources are all up to date , work and mention your main points. I would like to see at least one image of her ,you can maybe add it next to the lead section ?

Overall the article is complete in term of content but missing minor details that won't hinder the article's main points. Well researched and written , feels like an experienced wiki editor wrote this which is a good thing .But remember to add a brief description of your main points in your lead section.