This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- I am reviewing Graham's article. User: GrDVillarreal
- User:GrDVillarreal/Neopaganism in the United States
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Peer's Answer: Graham didn't seem to add a lead. I would maybe just clearly show which section of the article you are editing by adding a title. I had trouble finding the original quotes within the wiki article.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Peer's Answer: What Graham has edited is not the intro to the subject, so the lead does not quite introduce the topic very well.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Peer's Answer: Graham's lead will probably be the same lead within the article already, he is just expanding upon the information.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Peer's Answer: Nothing he wrote about caught me off guard. It is all on topic.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Peer's Answer: Since I could't find which lead he is writing under, I do not know the answer.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Peer's Answer: The content is quite relevant
- Is the content added up-to-date? Peer's Answer: The content is also up-to-date
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Peer's Answer: Everything seems to belong. Graham only added a few more citations and details so I'm sure he could expand even more to make it better if he wants to.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Peer's Answer: Neutral as can be!
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Peer's Answer: Nothing is heavily biased
- Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? Peer's Answer: Graham discusses a lot about how Celtic re constructionists differ from druidry, but he could probably add more history on the origination.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Peer's Answer: There is nothing he tries to persuade.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Peer's Answer: Graham expanded a lot on sources and they all seem to be reliable.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Peer's Answer: The sources have good literature on the topic. The only source that seems a little shady is the lasvegas.com source.
- Are the sources current? Peer's Answer: Sources are current, especially since what Graham is discussing is from so long ago.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Peer's Answer: The links added to websites work. Most sources came from books. If they were found on databases, you could link to the database to find the book.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Peer's Answer: Indeed
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Peer's Answer: No errors I could find.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Peer's Answer: Well organized, again, he could expand a little more.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Peer's Answer: Yes, I like the prison chart.
- Are images well-captioned? Peer's Answer: Images are connected to links.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Peer's Answer: Only one image is used and I believe it is connected to another wiki article where it is properly cited
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Peer's Answer: connected to link, so yes?
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? Peer's Answer: Shore is!
- What are the strengths of the content added? Peer's Answer: I think Graham wrote very intelligently and concise. He expanded upon where the article had issues and includes better information than the previous quotes, including citations as well.
- How can the content added be improved? Peer's Answer: The only thing I can think of is finding a bit more to edit. You only expanded upon two things. I'm not sure if more information is required into this project though. Maybe include an extra paragraph on more history?
I really like how you organized everything. It made it easy to edit. I would definitely add a lead so I know which section of the article you are writing under. You seem to understand the project well and did a professional job.
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- I am reviewing Graham's article. User: GrDVillarreal
- User:GrDVillarreal/Neopaganism in the United States
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Peer's Answer: Graham didn't seem to add a lead. I would maybe just clearly show which section of the article you are editing by adding a title. I had trouble finding the original quotes within the wiki article.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Peer's Answer: What Graham has edited is not the intro to the subject, so the lead does not quite introduce the topic very well.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Peer's Answer: Graham's lead will probably be the same lead within the article already, he is just expanding upon the information.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Peer's Answer: Nothing he wrote about caught me off guard. It is all on topic.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Peer's Answer: Since I could't find which lead he is writing under, I do not know the answer.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Peer's Answer: The content is quite relevant
- Is the content added up-to-date? Peer's Answer: The content is also up-to-date
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Peer's Answer: Everything seems to belong. Graham only added a few more citations and details so I'm sure he could expand even more to make it better if he wants to.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Peer's Answer: Neutral as can be!
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Peer's Answer: Nothing is heavily biased
- Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? Peer's Answer: Graham discusses a lot about how Celtic re constructionists differ from druidry, but he could probably add more history on the origination.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Peer's Answer: There is nothing he tries to persuade.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Peer's Answer: Graham expanded a lot on sources and they all seem to be reliable.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Peer's Answer: The sources have good literature on the topic. The only source that seems a little shady is the lasvegas.com source.
- Are the sources current? Peer's Answer: Sources are current, especially since what Graham is discussing is from so long ago.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Peer's Answer: The links added to websites work. Most sources came from books. If they were found on databases, you could link to the database to find the book.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Peer's Answer: Indeed
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Peer's Answer: No errors I could find.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Peer's Answer: Well organized, again, he could expand a little more.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Peer's Answer: Yes, I like the prison chart.
- Are images well-captioned? Peer's Answer: Images are connected to links.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Peer's Answer: Only one image is used and I believe it is connected to another wiki article where it is properly cited
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Peer's Answer: connected to link, so yes?
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? Peer's Answer: Shore is!
- What are the strengths of the content added? Peer's Answer: I think Graham wrote very intelligently and concise. He expanded upon where the article had issues and includes better information than the previous quotes, including citations as well.
- How can the content added be improved? Peer's Answer: The only thing I can think of is finding a bit more to edit. You only expanded upon two things. I'm not sure if more information is required into this project though. Maybe include an extra paragraph on more history?
I really like how you organized everything. It made it easy to edit. I would definitely add a lead so I know which section of the article you are writing under. You seem to understand the project well and did a professional job.