User:Grizzbuzz/Global (cutlery)/Eric1997uw Peer Review

Peer review

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

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
  • Grizzbuzz
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Grizzbuzz/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Lead currently reflects what the product is, who makes It, where it's made, and who owns the product.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, lead concisely and clearly describes the topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead hints at the major sections however doesn't explicitly list out the exact titles of the major sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Concise and communicates what It needs to.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • All content is relevant to the product and the brand of GLOBAL.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • All content is sourced from material that was published within the past 5-10 years.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There could be more information that could be added, however this current article touches on three of the most relevant and important topics — History, Features, and Construction.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Content added includes information about the positive features of the product, and includes information about the drawbacks of the product. Information about both are cited.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, the debatable information included (quality/features) contains multiple points of view and doesn't lean too far either direction. (Benefits vs. Drawbacks)
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • All sections and viewpoints seem to be represented equally across the article.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No contains factual information and is cited. Otherwise provides multiple points of view.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Sources seem to be all relevant articles about the product or the industry. Also uses the products website.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Sources are thorough, seem to be the most reliable information available about history, production, and product information.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes all have been published within the past 5-10 years.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes all links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Content reads very well, It is concise and clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No grammatical errors or spelling errors upon reading twice over.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes the sections all reflect the most important topics on the product.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes images clearly display the product and its most recognizable features.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes images are captioned specifically and clearly.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes, images are equally dispersed through the article.

For New Articles Only

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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • I believe the content added has improved the article greatly. It has made the article read as a more complete wiki article.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Well written, no bias viewpoints, appropriate length, and interesting + valuable information.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • If more relevant can be added, It would be worthwhile to find that information and add It. Also more images for the features section if you find necessary. Good job.