User:Isobelpowell/Gum Wall/Kfoltz2 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?
Isobelpowell

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Isobelpowell/Gum_Wall?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Gum Wall

Evaluate the drafted changes

Hello!

Overall, the article is looking a lot better! I don't see a lot of things that need to be changed, but I do have a couple of suggestions below:

History: change the wording so it says "the wall is located next to the box office..."
History: if you can find more information on the history of the Gum Wall, it would make this section stronger. You could even find interviews of people sharing their experiences at the Gum Wall. I would include what the main incentive was for people to start sticking their gum on the wall.
Recognition: who named it one of the top 5 germiest tourist attractions? Make sure to include this so we know it's reliable!
Recognition: I would go into more detail on the importance of it being the beginning of the ghost tour and talk more about wedding photographers, but make these two separate sentence(s). It would also be interesting to know approximately how many wedding shoots have been done here.
Recognition: I would see if there are other films/documentaries that have the gum wall in them. I know several things have been filmed in Seattle, so the gum wall is probably in another production.
Since there is only one gum wall in Seattle, I would include an address and a map of the location.
References: reference #5 doesn't directly go to the article - it's just the home page for the website that wrote the article. I would try to find the exact article again and include a link that will take you straight to the article. The rest of the references look great!
Just wanted to note - the use of images is great! You really get a good idea of what the gum wall looks like.
I made a couple of minor grammatical grammar corrections (including some of the ones I suggested above)!