Wikipedia

User:Dalrhoads/Doubles (food)/Kenskin86 Peer Review

< User:Dalrhoads‎ | Doubles (food)

Peer review

edit

General info

edit

Lead

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, lead has been updated
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
  • 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
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation: lead is good, but has no new info. Not so bad considering the original wiki article is pretty much complete.

edit

Content

edit

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?

Content evaluation: content is good at this stage, will need more refinement for final stages.

edit

Tone and Balance

edit

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?

Tone and balance evaluation: content is neutral and balanced

edit

Sources and References

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Are the sources current?
  • Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation: Sources are credible and functional.

edit

Organization

edit

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?

Organization evaluation: content could be more well-written, but is good for now. Organization is acceptable.

edit

Images and Media

edit

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?

Images and media evaluation: no images in article so far.

edit

For New Articles Only

edit

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation

edit

Overall impressions

edit

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?

Overall evaluation: content so is good, but some new info would be nice. Maybe some literary references to doubles or a paragraph about cultural significance, something like that.

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dalrhoads/Doubles_(food)/Kenskin86_Peer_Review&oldid=920758900"