This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? BrdvltLB
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BrdvltLB/Primary mineral
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?
The lead section was not updated to show the content from the editor.
The introductory sentence concisely explains the articles topic.
This article is not made of major sections.
The lead has information that is not mentioned again, this is becuase the lead is the majority of the article
the lead is over detailed and information could be taken out of it to make up new sections.
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?
The content that was added is relevant to the topic.
The source added is old but the information in it is not likely to have changed.
The article is not very long so there could be new information added.
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?
This article is neutral in tone.
It is non biased in its position.
no viewpoints are misrepresented
The content does not attempt to sway the reader.
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?
The new content is backed up by reliable secondary resources and is supported well.
The sources are not that recent but seem to be still relevant.
The links are working.
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?
The content added was well written and easy to read.
The content appears grammatically correct.
The added content is well organized and adds new sections to the content that was previously just a lead.
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?
This article has no images.
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?
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?
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? BrdvltLB
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BrdvltLB/Primary mineral
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?
The lead section was not updated to show the content from the editor.
The introductory sentence concisely explains the articles topic.
This article is not made of major sections.
The lead has information that is not mentioned again, this is becuase the lead is the majority of the article
the lead is over detailed and information could be taken out of it to make up new sections.
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?
The content that was added is relevant to the topic.
The source added is old but the information in it is not likely to have changed.
The article is not very long so there could be new information added.
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?
This article is neutral in tone.
It is non biased in its position.
no viewpoints are misrepresented
The content does not attempt to sway the reader.
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?
The new content is backed up by reliable secondary resources and is supported well.
The sources are not that recent but seem to be still relevant.
The links are working.
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?
The content added was well written and easy to read.
The content appears grammatically correct.
The added content is well organized and adds new sections to the content that was previously just a lead.
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?
This article has no images.
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?
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?