![]() | 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 ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
(provide username) FCollins95 - Forrest Collins
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)
The added content appears to be have an overall neutral tone. The content that has been added seems to be relevant and the information seems to be up to date. The information added seems to be new, helpful, and worth adding to the article. When reading the article and the edits, the sentences flow together well and the article is easy to read. The old and new information seems to be added in a well organized manner. There are no images that have been added, so there are no comments to add. Regarding the paper that was used to add the new information, I may be looking on the wrong page, but all I see from my end is "Look at Wibbels paper on how he was able to adjust temperature." I'm not sure how I can access the paper to look to see if the information is accurate. After adding the new edits, the article appears to be more complete. The strengths of the content added is that it provides more information on Temperature Sex Determination for reptiles. Not entirely sure how the content can be improved. Overall, the edits appear to be good quality.
![]() | 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 ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
(provide username) FCollins95 - Forrest Collins
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)
The added content appears to be have an overall neutral tone. The content that has been added seems to be relevant and the information seems to be up to date. The information added seems to be new, helpful, and worth adding to the article. When reading the article and the edits, the sentences flow together well and the article is easy to read. The old and new information seems to be added in a well organized manner. There are no images that have been added, so there are no comments to add. Regarding the paper that was used to add the new information, I may be looking on the wrong page, but all I see from my end is "Look at Wibbels paper on how he was able to adjust temperature." I'm not sure how I can access the paper to look to see if the information is accurate. After adding the new edits, the article appears to be more complete. The strengths of the content added is that it provides more information on Temperature Sex Determination for reptiles. Not entirely sure how the content can be improved. Overall, the edits appear to be good quality.