User:MArtin9712/Mahua (snack)/Mnqly14 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? 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?
• 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

Compared to the original article, this Lead is definitely more concise. However, I don't think it properly describes the articles major sections.

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?

Content evaluation

The content seems to be relevant as the various sections discuss Mahua in different regions. I think that offers the reader with a better understanding of the popularity and culture behind this snack food. I did find each section to be quite brief, so I'm curious to know if there is more information that could be added.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

I found the article to be fairly neutral and didn't pick up on a tone that attempted to sway the reader in any way.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

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

Sources and references evaluation

The sources are pretty current, but I noticed that most of them of appear to be blog posts. Given the topic, I am not sure of the type of literature that is out there to reflect on.

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?

Organization evaluation

Each individual section is very clear and easy to read, however the organization of the overall article could be presented in a better way. I think the subheadings could be revised to better reveal to the reader what they could expect from each section.

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?

Images and media evaluation

I would have liked to see more pictures included in the article. On one of the sources used, I noticed that it included pictures of the various steps in making Mahua and I though that would have been a valuable edition to this specific 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?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

I think this article is on the right track. It greatly improved the Lead by giving readers a sense of what Mahua is without overwhelming them too much. I appreciated the clarity of each sections and the inclusion of pertinent information. I felt like I was being informed rather than convinced to believe to anything, and that neutrality is always an important feature to have for your article. Again, I would have preferred more pictures because I think they could have offered more to the article, and potentially translate to more written content, but the one photo was still a great addition.