Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Poverty Justice and Human Capabilities (Kimberly Hoang)/Peer review
Workshop Peer Review Due Tuesday, November 1
1. Print your group members’ pages, read through each entry, and edit and comment as you see fit. Pay particular attention to readability, sentence clarity, and strong referencing. 2. Fill out the form below. Bring to class on Thursday, November 3, and give to your group members for their review.
Page Title _______________________________________________
Peer Reviewer ________________________________________
| Area | Score Range | Score and Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Comprehensiveness | 1-10
10: The article is comprehensive, going into appropriate detail about all aspects of the topic, neglecting no major facts, details or key debates, and uses summary style where appropriate. The contribution considers a variety of perspectives rather than relying on the points of one or two scholars. Major subtopics do not overwhelm the article but are, instead, placed in their own articles with links from the main article. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Summary_style) 7: The article is mostly comprehensive, but falls short in one or more significant areas of the topic. 3: The article goes beyond a preliminary introduction, but is far from comprehensive, neglecting 3 or more major areas of the topic or alternative perspectives. |
|
| Sourcing | 0-6
6: The article is well sourced, such that readers can determine which information comes from which source. The most appropriate sources are used, including journal articles and scholarly works and the article follows Wikipedia standards for reliable, published, sources representing all majority and significant minority views (see http://en/Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS). The contribution takes an appropriate tone in describing competing points of view clearly, and nuances and subtle distinctions where appropriate. 4: The article is mostly well-sourced, but has comparatively few sources or does not use the most appropriate sources. 2: A significant portion of the article is well-sourced, but the majority is not adequately sourced. |
|
| Neutrality | 1-3
3: The article follows NPOV policy fully. In cases of competing claims, the article clearly attributes specific claims to their respective sources. (For NPOV see Wikipedia Guidelines handout and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) 2: The article has minor exceptions to NPOV: includes subtle differences in how various viewpoints are described, excludes minor, but significant viewpoints, when all other major viewpoints are included. 1: The article follows NPOV for the viewpoints represented, but lacks some major viewpoints. |
|
| Readability | 0-3
3: The article is well organized, proofread, and has excellent style and grammar and is highly readable by a general audience. Sentences are clear, avoid passive voice, grammatical errors, complex wording, and are accessible to Wikipedia’s broad audience, including people from different educational levels, backgrounds, and expertise in English. 2: The article is comprehensible and reasonably clear, but a need for copy editing or better organizing is apparent. |
|
| Formatting | 0-2
2: The article is well-formatted, is mostly consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MoS), and includes a lead, links, and is of a legible size when printed (eg. 12pt font). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style 1: The article has modest deficiencies in format and/or deviates significantly from the MoS. 0: Formatting detracts from the reading experience. |
|
| Illustrations | 0-2
2: The article is well-illustrated, with relevant images and captions where appropriate. All images are appropriately captioned and have “alt text” (see: http://en. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alteernative_text_for_images). 1: The article is partially illustrated, but more or better images should be added. 0: The article contains few or no illustrations, or inappropriate illustrations. | |
| Total | 1-26 |
Indicate one or two areas the page would primarily benefit from improvement (referencing, content, readability, neutrality, images, additional blue links, etc.). Be as specific as possible: