User:Corbin Blackett/Donnell Walton/VicVal2315 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?

Corbin Blackett

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Corbin Blackett/Donnell Walton
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): User:Corbin Blackett/Donnell Walton

Evaluate the drafted changes edit

Lead

The article has a strong lead that sufficiently introduces who the subject is and what he does. The article's introductory sentence clearly describes who and what the article is about. The Lead includes brief descriptions for Education and Career sections, but does not include a brief description of the Personal Life section. The lead does include information that is not present elsewhere in the article - the portion referencing Donnell Walton being outspoken about getting more minorities into physics. I think that this portion could possibly be added to the Personal Life section as it gives an insight into the subject's personal beliefs. The Lead is concise and does not include too man details or irrelevant details.

Content

The article contains content that is relevant to the topic - Donnell Walton and his life and work. I feel that the content added is up to date, as the latest source is dated 3/22/24. The article is missing content in the Personal Life and Publications section. I do not feel that the article contains content that does not belong. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gap. However, it does reference the subject voicing his support for more minorities in the field of Physics, which relates to a historically underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance

I feel that the content added to this article is neutral in tone because the article does not attempt to sway the reader towards any particular belief or viewpoint. The overall tone of the article is informative. The information is presented concisely. The article makes no claims that appear heavily biased towards a specific side or view. The article does not support a specific position on any topic. The article does not contain any viewpoints that are underrepresented or overrepresented, again the tone overall is informative without expressing a certain outlook. The article does not attempt to sway the reader in any particular direction.

Sources and References

All content added is backed up by sources. Each section includes sources throughout. The article accurately reflects the information that is presented in the sources. The interview has a lot of information in it that can possibly be used for sections of the article. I think that the sources are thorough because they reflect the information that is currently available for this person. However, I think that some sources can be looked into again because there is a lot of information included in one of the sources(the interview). Three of the sources are current - they are dated for the current month and year. One of the sources is not current, as it comes from 2013. The sources do not appear very diverse. One sources was authored by a woman but I could not find the authors of the other 3. I could not find any better alternative sources such as peer reviewed journals. All 4 of the source links work correctly.

Organization

I feel that the content is written well. It is clear, concise and easy to follow. I could not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The article appears well organized. The lead in is clear and each following section is laid out.

Images and Media

The article does not contain any images or media.

For New Articles

The article meets the Notability requirement. All sources listed in the bibliography are used in the article. The article links to a different article.

Overall Impressions

The content added has improved the article overall in my opinion. The strengths of added content are: readability, clarity and accuracy. The content can be improved by filling in the missing sections and adding a picture.