User:EstricPolearm/Unkulunkulu/LunaRavenrose 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?

(EstricPolearm)

Link to draft you're reviewing: Editing User:EstricPolearm/Unkulunkulu - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

LEAD: the lead has a good introduction sentence; however, it does not have a brief description of the article so that could be added in even if it's just a sentence or two describing what the article contains. The lead could use some more details as well its very basic.

CONTENT: as far as the content goes, I think they are doing a good job it could use more details as its very basic. (I know its incomplete so I am sure more will be added) the writing is good it leads me to want to read more and get more information on the subjects, so I think if you go into further details of the "how" and the "why" it would really give the reader what they are looking for.

TONE AND BALANCE: I have no critique for this one because they did an excellent job staying neutral.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES: the sources and references appear to be good they used a wide range of sources. A good idea would be to pull as much information from the sources as possible.

ORGANIZATION: So far, the article seems well organized, I didn't notice any grammar or spelling errors, The writing is clear, separated into sections of major points of the article.

IMAGES AND MEDIA: no images have been added to the article yet.

FOR NEW ARTICLES: I am unsure if this is a new article, and I don't know how to tell the difference, but they appear to me to be following/have all the guidelines this suggests.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS: overall I think this article has a strong start, it is well written so far. like I mentioned it could use more details but I'm sure they will add them as its incomplete. I think they are doing a great job so far and I enjoy what i read so far it made me want to learn more so that's fantastic.