User:MArtin9712/Mahua (snack)/Maggiehoang 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)
  • MArtin9712
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:MArtin9712/Mahua (snack)

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes. It has been updated and seems to be more refined than the original article.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • It does by describing what the snack is with wiki links for more information about the other ingredients.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • It does give us a good overview about what the article will be able.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No. The information in the lead looks relevant.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It is concise. It is a good length to inform us about the snack.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes. The article is broken down nicely with the content, easier to read.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes. The content is new added by the editor.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No. They all are relevant.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • I think the content added is neutral. There aren't any convincing wording. It is mostly information about the snack.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No. I don't notice any biases.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No. The content is closely distributed. It has a good amount of information.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No. There are no convincing sides.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes. There are some reliable sources, but some are blogs (not sure about how reliable they are, but they are written in a neutral tone)/
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes. They give us more insight on this snack.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes. I noticed it is all within the last 10 years.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • #3 does not link to the article but to the homepage.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • I think it is concise and clear. The way you broke down the old lead into content was a good idea.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I did not notice any.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes. Broken down very nicely instead of a paragraph of information.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • It is.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes. It looks like it was from wiki
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes. The one image has the information with origin which is helpful.