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? Cpichany
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cpichany/sandbox
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead has been updated to reflect the new content, it brings up how Haiti is in need of help and then the user goes on to add content about Haiti living in extreme poverty.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence is clear and concise and describes the main idea of the article.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead brings up housing, nutrition, education, etc. however, none of this is in any of the articles major sections.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, nothing is discussed about housing nutrition, and more.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, however it contains information that is not in the rest of the article.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added relates to topic of the article.
- Is the content added up-to-date? I don't know, there is sources but I do not see where the sources are used and which ones, so I don't know if the content is from up-to-date sources.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content belongs.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the topic is related to Haiti which is a historically underrepresented population.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes the content added was neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The only claim is that Haiti is really in need of help but I don't think that is biased.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the viewpoints are neutral.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It may persuade readers that Haiti is in need of help but I don't think that's a bad thing.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I don't know because none of the new content is cited with sources.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are thorough.
- Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are very current, one was even updated in 2020.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources are from all different sites and authors.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes all of them work.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is very easy to read and to the point.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No it does not.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It's only broken down into two sections but it does reflect the major points on the topic.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
They did not add 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?
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? The content added was only a few sentences but I do think it improved the article.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is mostly facts and statistics so it's good for readers to get straight up statistics about what they are reading.
- How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by first adding a little more content, and second putting the sources in the added content so readers can see where these new statistics came from.
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? Cpichany
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cpichany/sandbox
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the lead has been updated to reflect the new content, it brings up how Haiti is in need of help and then the user goes on to add content about Haiti living in extreme poverty.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence is clear and concise and describes the main idea of the article.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead brings up housing, nutrition, education, etc. however, none of this is in any of the articles major sections.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, nothing is discussed about housing nutrition, and more.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, however it contains information that is not in the rest of the article.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added relates to topic of the article.
- Is the content added up-to-date? I don't know, there is sources but I do not see where the sources are used and which ones, so I don't know if the content is from up-to-date sources.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content belongs.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the topic is related to Haiti which is a historically underrepresented population.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes the content added was neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The only claim is that Haiti is really in need of help but I don't think that is biased.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the viewpoints are neutral.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It may persuade readers that Haiti is in need of help but I don't think that's a bad thing.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I don't know because none of the new content is cited with sources.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are thorough.
- Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are very current, one was even updated in 2020.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources are from all different sites and authors.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes all of them work.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is very easy to read and to the point.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No it does not.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It's only broken down into two sections but it does reflect the major points on the topic.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
They did not add 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?
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? The content added was only a few sentences but I do think it improved the article.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is mostly facts and statistics so it's good for readers to get straight up statistics about what they are reading.
- How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by first adding a little more content, and second putting the sources in the added content so readers can see where these new statistics came from.