User:Mbdougl/Symporter/Hrpollo 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
  • Whose work are you reviewing? Mbdougl
  • Link to draft you're reviewing: Symporter

Lead

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
    • No additional information appears to have been added.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • The lead already contains this.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • The lead already contains this.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • The lead already does not.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • The lead is concise and explains information well.

Lead evaluation

edit

Content

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • It appears there is no added content.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • It appears there is no added content. Other content is up to date.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • Content is all relevant. More information regarding what symport is with additional examples may be helpful.

Content evaluation

edit

Tone and Balance

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • It appears there is no added content.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • It appears there is no added content. There is no bias currently
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • It appears there is no added content. Viewpoints are all equal currently.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • It appears there is no added content.

Tone and balance evaluation

edit

Sources and References

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • It appears there is no added content.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • It appears there is no added content.
  • Are the sources current?
    • It appears there is no added content. Other sources are current.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • The links worked.

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?
    • It appears there is no added content.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • It appears there is no added content.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • It appears there is no added content.

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?
    • No images were added.
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • No images were added.
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • No images were added.
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • No images were added.

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. N/A

  • 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?

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?
    • It appears there is no added content. The article is not more complete.
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
    • No content was added.
  • How can the content added be improved?
    • More information needs to be added regarding what symport is, how it works, and additional examples.

Overall evaluation

edit