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? (provide username) Kathylamb7
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Kathylamb7/Acacia Winery/Tmaraki Peer Review
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? Yes
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is concise. It doesn't provide any new information that is not expanded in the rest of the article.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content that was added is relevant to the topic. However, there are certain claims that were in the existing article that could be summed up easily rather than stretched out with its own paragraph. It looks like fluff to make the article seem larger than it appears instead of being more informative.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Kind of. Out of the additional information added, the newest publication is dated 2008. Perhaps there is material that was published in the last 5-10 years that would be available and work better.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes. In the history section, the 2005 and 2016 benchmarks that talk about who acquired the brand/company next are no longer relevant. The bit about Diageo purchasing Chalone Wine Group should be removed or moved to Chalone Wine Group's wiki page. And when Treasury Wine Estates acquired Diageo, this section should be moved to Diageo's wiki page. They no longer relate to the topic Acacia Winery.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this question is not applicable to the article.
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? In the existing article, it mentioned that the winery was an "important influence in the Los Carneros wine region", but does not elaborate why or how specifically Acacia Winery was influential. This point is underrepresented. Another viewpoint underrepresented is how the winery produced their wines. Was there a special method used for their grapes? Were there seasonal wines? Was there a special hands-on experience involved? This would be a great point to add to the article.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. This is a very neutral toned article.
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? For the most part, yes. Some sources from previous editors are in the process of being updated by current peer editor.
- Are the sources current? For the most part yes. Some are outdated, but still relevant.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all working.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content added is well-written, clear and concise. Very easy to follow along as a reader.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No. Intro that was added is well written and highlights great points.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Content is well-organized with an intro and history section that compliment each other well as far as content and flow.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. Just one image on the article that enhances the topic.
- Are images well-captioned? Yes.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? Yes.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I don't believe all available literature is accurately represented. But, because the winery was bought by another company over 10 years ago, information on the topic is very limited. So it may require extensive research to find additional reliable sources. So, it's difficult to say if this is all the literature available without doing further research.
- 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. It links to many other articles
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the introduction is much more informative on what the article is about, much easier to read and works very well with the overall topic.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The introduction is strong and smartly sums up the main points of the article. It's easy to read, yet intellectually stimulating enough to draw readers in.
- How can the content added be improved? Expanding on specific points of the history, like how Michael Richmond and his other partners perhaps met and came to acquire/found the winery. Also, elaborating more on what makes the winery so special as far as their wines, how the grapes are grown and fermented would give the article more strength. The added intro is an excellent start- very well written and informative.
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? (provide username) Kathylamb7
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Kathylamb7/Acacia Winery/Tmaraki Peer Review
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? Yes
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is concise. It doesn't provide any new information that is not expanded in the rest of the article.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content that was added is relevant to the topic. However, there are certain claims that were in the existing article that could be summed up easily rather than stretched out with its own paragraph. It looks like fluff to make the article seem larger than it appears instead of being more informative.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Kind of. Out of the additional information added, the newest publication is dated 2008. Perhaps there is material that was published in the last 5-10 years that would be available and work better.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes. In the history section, the 2005 and 2016 benchmarks that talk about who acquired the brand/company next are no longer relevant. The bit about Diageo purchasing Chalone Wine Group should be removed or moved to Chalone Wine Group's wiki page. And when Treasury Wine Estates acquired Diageo, this section should be moved to Diageo's wiki page. They no longer relate to the topic Acacia Winery.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this question is not applicable to the article.
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? In the existing article, it mentioned that the winery was an "important influence in the Los Carneros wine region", but does not elaborate why or how specifically Acacia Winery was influential. This point is underrepresented. Another viewpoint underrepresented is how the winery produced their wines. Was there a special method used for their grapes? Were there seasonal wines? Was there a special hands-on experience involved? This would be a great point to add to the article.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. This is a very neutral toned article.
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? For the most part, yes. Some sources from previous editors are in the process of being updated by current peer editor.
- Are the sources current? For the most part yes. Some are outdated, but still relevant.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all working.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content added is well-written, clear and concise. Very easy to follow along as a reader.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No. Intro that was added is well written and highlights great points.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Content is well-organized with an intro and history section that compliment each other well as far as content and flow.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. Just one image on the article that enhances the topic.
- Are images well-captioned? Yes.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? Yes.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I don't believe all available literature is accurately represented. But, because the winery was bought by another company over 10 years ago, information on the topic is very limited. So it may require extensive research to find additional reliable sources. So, it's difficult to say if this is all the literature available without doing further research.
- 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. It links to many other articles
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the introduction is much more informative on what the article is about, much easier to read and works very well with the overall topic.
- What are the strengths of the content added? The introduction is strong and smartly sums up the main points of the article. It's easy to read, yet intellectually stimulating enough to draw readers in.
- How can the content added be improved? Expanding on specific points of the history, like how Michael Richmond and his other partners perhaps met and came to acquire/found the winery. Also, elaborating more on what makes the winery so special as far as their wines, how the grapes are grown and fermented would give the article more strength. The added intro is an excellent start- very well written and informative.