User:Langfordchaz168/STAB/Tubbsofsteel Peer Review

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?
  • 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?

Lead evaluation

edit

I think the writer wrote leads that accurately reflected the topics discussed, and I believe all the introductory sentences are quite good. I like that the leads are concise and get straight to the point.

Content

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I think it is quite relevant to the topic.
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the sources used are relevant.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there can be more writing done on the projects that STAB did to get a clearer understanding of what their goals were but overall most of the content is good.

Content evaluation

edit

Tone and Balance

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? Yes, most of the content covered is neutral.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there isn't.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think most viewpoints are equally represented but there could be more written on how the Russian people viewed the group if possible.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I did not see any.

Tone and balance evaluation

edit

Sources and References

edit

Guiding questions:

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

Sources and references evaluation

edit

Organization

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is, no complains.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation

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? The articles presented did have images that showed relevant visual info.
  • Are images well-captioned? No images were presented.
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

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? Yes, it does.
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is only a few sources but I believe the writer will add more later on, but all the sources accurately represent the information.
  • 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? Yes.
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes it does.

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? Yes I think the content added increased the quality of the article but I feel more should be added later on for more detailed explanations.
  • What are the strengths of the content added? The content added gives good insight into the topics the person was assigned towards.
  • How can the content added be improved? Perhaps more detailed explanations.

Overall evaluation (I think it was a good article overall, add more information though. Keep up the good work!)

edit