![]() | Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
Additional Resources |
General info
edit- Whose work are you reviewing?
I am reviewing Schu4379 and Mismosptk's article on Snow Algae. I see that initially, this article did not have any information added to it and so these two users are planning on creating an entire article.
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Schu4379/Snow algae
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Snow algae
Evaluate the drafted changes
editLead: The lead is nice and clear and introduces and defines the concepts well. Summarizes main points of the article, and succinctly describes all of the important parts of this algae.
Content: Content is relevant and well-cited. Sources are of scholarly origin and have been peer reviewed. I would've loved to see more information about their role in a ecosystem, but the information provided is sufficient.
Organization: Article is well-organized and the spacing of paragraphs is appropriate for wikipedia. There are no spelling or grammatical errors.
New Article: The article is supported by reliable sources. There are 18 sources, 8 more than were required for this project. The article follows the patterns of other articles on wikipedia. The article also links to other articles.
Overall, I found this article to be very complete and polished. The information is sound and the article flows nicely with other wikipedia articles. I think that in some of the shorter sections (I.E. ecological role) there could have been more added to round out the section but in all, the article is very professional and well done!