Wikipedia

User:Elizabethpopoff/User:Elizabethpopoff/Affogato/Allie partridge Peer Review

< User:Elizabethpopoff

Peer review

edit

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

edit

Lead

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
    • Yes, the lead has been updated with new content.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Yes, the first sentence is clear and concise.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • The bulk of the article is the lead. Therefore no other section is mentioned.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • No, the lead does not include information that is not presented in the article.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • The lead is concise.

Content

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes, all the added content is relevant to the topic.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes, all the content is up-to-date.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • There is not content that is missing or 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?
    • No, the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • Yes, all the added content is neutral.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No, there are no biased claims.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • No, there are no over represented/underrepresented viewpoints.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • All new content is backed up by sources, however some of these sources are blogs which may or may not be reliable.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • I believe they do reflect the available literature on the topic.
  • Are the sources current?
    • Yes, the sources are current.
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
    • The sources are written, by many different people from many different cities. The authors do not include historically marginalized individuals, however I do not think that is important for this specific article.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes, all links work.

Organization

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Yes, all content is well-written and easy to read.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • No, the content does not have any spelling/grammatical errors.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes, the content is well organized. It may be helpful to add another section describing presentation of the dessert.

Images and Media

edit

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
    • n/a
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • n/a
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • n/a
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • n/a

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?
    • n/a
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
    • n/a
  • 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?
    • n/a
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
    • n/a

Overall impressions

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
    • Yes, I believe the add content helps the reader further understand an Affogato.
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • The new content helps the reader understand the presentation of the dessert, which varies from the presentation of most desserts.
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • I think the content can be further improved by breaking some of the information into a section other than the lead.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elizabethpopoff/User:Elizabethpopoff/Affogato/Allie_partridge_Peer_Review&oldid=985130399"