User:Nealthane/Theatre of ancient Rome/Jway04 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?
    • No, it may be helpful to add a lead that includes all the info you've added after you finish editing.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • Although your origin section is extremely informative, there still needs to be a Lead included.
  • 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: I'm not going to keep re-phrasing it in different ways, yeah just add a lead haha, your origin is great though.

edit

Content

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?
    • Yes, the content is very informative and on topic.
  • Is the content added up-to-date?
    • Yes the content and sources are relevant and up to date.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • No, all the content is relevant and there are no major gaps in the added information.

Content evaluation: The content is up to date and well managed. There are no major gaps in the information and it's informative. Very well done.

edit

Tone and Balance

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral?
    • Yes
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No, neutrality is maintained throughout the article.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • No
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • No

Tone and balance evaluation: Tone is non-persuasive and the content is neutral.

edit

Sources and References

edit

Guiding questions:

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

Sources and references evaluation: Sources are relevant and reputable as well as current, well done.

edit

Organization

edit

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • For the most part, there are a few sections where it gets confusing and there are typos, if you'd like I can point them out to you, just let me know!
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • Minimal typos and slight confusion in one or two sentences.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes

Organization evaluation: For the most part it's well organized and clearly written, there are just a few small areas where confusion is there.

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?
  • 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 Although there are no added media images, it may be useful to find some!

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?
  • 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?
  • What are the strengths of the content added?
  • How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation: The information you have added is extremely well organized and informative. Other than a few grammatical issues and typos this article is very well done.

edit