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? Kayla, Seniork99
- Link to draft you're reviewing: /info/en/?search=User:Seniork99?action=edit
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?
My peer did not make any changes to the Lead section of the article. However, I do not think many changes were needed to be made on this section as it is concise.
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 has been added by my peer is very relevant to the article. Most of the content that has been added is from the last four years, so it is up-to-date. I think that my peer did a great job with the content.
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?
The content added by my peer maintained a neutral tone throughout. At no point was there any bias towards a particular position or was there over/under representation of any viewpoints. The statistics added are important as it provides factual evidence to the points being made.
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 sources used by my peer are thorough, and I was able to access the links that I clicked on. Most of the sources used were thorough and are reliable.
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 is very clear to read and gets straight to the point. There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I stumbled upon. I think it is a very well organized section.
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?
My peer did not add any images or media.
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?
My peer is not review a new article.
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?
Overall, I think my peer did a great job with this section. The language used was clear, concise and very easy to read. There were no spelling or grammar mistakes that I was able to take note of. Furthermore, the tone maintained throughout the entire section was neutral, and there was no bias at all. I believe that this content has improved the quality of the article as it lacked proper information about the experiences that female clinicians face. The sources that I checked all were accessible and reliable from my personal standpoint.
My peer made this particular section of the article more complete by providing statistics to show the discrimination that female clinicians face and by adding more information in regards to the sexual assault and income disparities that female clinicians face.
Also, I think that it would be nice if my peer included some media/graphics/charts in this section (maybe a graph showing some statistics). But it is great work overall!
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? Kayla, Seniork99
- Link to draft you're reviewing: /info/en/?search=User:Seniork99?action=edit
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?
My peer did not make any changes to the Lead section of the article. However, I do not think many changes were needed to be made on this section as it is concise.
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 has been added by my peer is very relevant to the article. Most of the content that has been added is from the last four years, so it is up-to-date. I think that my peer did a great job with the content.
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?
The content added by my peer maintained a neutral tone throughout. At no point was there any bias towards a particular position or was there over/under representation of any viewpoints. The statistics added are important as it provides factual evidence to the points being made.
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 sources used by my peer are thorough, and I was able to access the links that I clicked on. Most of the sources used were thorough and are reliable.
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 is very clear to read and gets straight to the point. There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I stumbled upon. I think it is a very well organized section.
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?
My peer did not add any images or media.
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?
My peer is not review a new article.
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?
Overall, I think my peer did a great job with this section. The language used was clear, concise and very easy to read. There were no spelling or grammar mistakes that I was able to take note of. Furthermore, the tone maintained throughout the entire section was neutral, and there was no bias at all. I believe that this content has improved the quality of the article as it lacked proper information about the experiences that female clinicians face. The sources that I checked all were accessible and reliable from my personal standpoint.
My peer made this particular section of the article more complete by providing statistics to show the discrimination that female clinicians face and by adding more information in regards to the sexual assault and income disparities that female clinicians face.
Also, I think that it would be nice if my peer included some media/graphics/charts in this section (maybe a graph showing some statistics). But it is great work overall!