Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing? Janelys101
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Janelys101/Mental health
Lead
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I would delete the "What is mental health?" and move straight into the definition/next sentence.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not mention all 3 topics that will be detailed in the future.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does not mention all 3 topics that will be detailed in the future.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Clear and concise
Lead evaluation
Content
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
Content evaluation
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Tone and balance evaluation
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
- Are the sources current? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
Sources and references evaluation
Organization
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical errors
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I like the 4 sections she has organized.
Organization evaluation
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
- Are images well-captioned? No images
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images
Images and media evaluation
For New Articles Only
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? Yes
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
- 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? Yes
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes
New Article Evaluation
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The overall quality of the article is excellent. It is a great start.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The article has a strong lead that goes into detail to define mental health and as well as what causes it.
- How can the content added be improved? Remove the question at the beginning and also remove the mentions of the article where you got the information from because the citation is enough.
Overall evaluation
The article is off to a great start. The next sections that are planned out fit into the article as they are all relevant. Only small changes have to be fixed like the removing the question and mentions of the name of the articles where information was coming from. The small number that leads you to the citation is enough to cite the source.
Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing? Janelys101
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Janelys101/Mental health
Lead
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I would delete the "What is mental health?" and move straight into the definition/next sentence.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not mention all 3 topics that will be detailed in the future.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does not mention all 3 topics that will be detailed in the future.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Clear and concise
Lead evaluation
Content
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
Content evaluation
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Tone and balance evaluation
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
- Are the sources current? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
Sources and references evaluation
Organization
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical errors
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I like the 4 sections she has organized.
Organization evaluation
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
- Are images well-captioned? No images
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images
Images and media evaluation
For New Articles Only
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? Yes
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
- 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? Yes
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes
New Article Evaluation
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The overall quality of the article is excellent. It is a great start.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The article has a strong lead that goes into detail to define mental health and as well as what causes it.
- How can the content added be improved? Remove the question at the beginning and also remove the mentions of the article where you got the information from because the citation is enough.
Overall evaluation
The article is off to a great start. The next sections that are planned out fit into the article as they are all relevant. Only small changes have to be fixed like the removing the question and mentions of the name of the articles where information was coming from. The small number that leads you to the citation is enough to cite the source.