 | 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. |
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Keyle.horton
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- /info/en/?search=User:Keyle.horton/Energy_poverty?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Energy poverty#Regional Analysis
Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead
It doesn't seem as though the Lead section of the article has been updated to reflect the content added by my peer. There is, however, a line in the Lead that points to the section of the article that my peer has contributed to. In my opinion, this line suffices and no revisions need to be made to the Lead section.
Content
Content seems to be of utmost relevance here, never straying from the topic of energy poverty, which is in keeping with the focus of this section of the article. The content also seems to be up-to-date. A statistic from 2014 and another from 2020 have been included, giving the article a modern and recent feel. Furthermore, the content is informative and seems essential throughout, i.e. nothing sticks out as being superfluous.
Tone and Balance
I would say that the tone conveyed through my peer’s additions is neutral for the most part but occasionally comes across as incorporating an element of personal bias. For example, I feel as though the sentences “However, these statistics may be misleading” and “just because a home is connected to electricity does not mean that it is adequate or reliable” inject some mild subjectivity into an otherwise objective piece of writing. In my opinion, the phrasing of these two sentences could be tweaked to render a more consistently neutral tone.
Sources and References
All new pieces of information are cited appropriately and backed by credible sources, i.e. academic reports and journals. There is, however, one notable exception to this whereby a blog has been referenced. This citation should probably be reconsidered given that blogs are considered to be unreliable sources of information. I will say that the citations here are all very current, each dating somewhere between 2013 and 2023, and comprehensively cover the topic of the added content, i.e. energy poverty in South Asia.
Organization
In my opinion, the content is largely well-written and concise with mostly sound grammar and spelling. I still think that there is no downside to doing a quick Grammarly check just to ensure that everything is in order grammar- and spelling-wise. I feel as though the structure of the content my peer has added works well as I view it as being in accordance with the structural style and flow of the existing portions of text in this section of the article.
Overall impressions
The content contributed by my peer has undoubtedly improved the overall quality of this article. The article is more complete, now containing an entirely new section that brings into sharp focus the issue of energy poverty within South Asia. I feel as though articles like these and their continual development are essential and should be lauded given that they spotlight very real and important issues that may often be overlooked in lieu of other seemingly more pressing issues.
| 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. |
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Keyle.horton
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- /info/en/?search=User:Keyle.horton/Energy_poverty?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Energy poverty#Regional Analysis
Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead
It doesn't seem as though the Lead section of the article has been updated to reflect the content added by my peer. There is, however, a line in the Lead that points to the section of the article that my peer has contributed to. In my opinion, this line suffices and no revisions need to be made to the Lead section.
Content
Content seems to be of utmost relevance here, never straying from the topic of energy poverty, which is in keeping with the focus of this section of the article. The content also seems to be up-to-date. A statistic from 2014 and another from 2020 have been included, giving the article a modern and recent feel. Furthermore, the content is informative and seems essential throughout, i.e. nothing sticks out as being superfluous.
Tone and Balance
I would say that the tone conveyed through my peer’s additions is neutral for the most part but occasionally comes across as incorporating an element of personal bias. For example, I feel as though the sentences “However, these statistics may be misleading” and “just because a home is connected to electricity does not mean that it is adequate or reliable” inject some mild subjectivity into an otherwise objective piece of writing. In my opinion, the phrasing of these two sentences could be tweaked to render a more consistently neutral tone.
Sources and References
All new pieces of information are cited appropriately and backed by credible sources, i.e. academic reports and journals. There is, however, one notable exception to this whereby a blog has been referenced. This citation should probably be reconsidered given that blogs are considered to be unreliable sources of information. I will say that the citations here are all very current, each dating somewhere between 2013 and 2023, and comprehensively cover the topic of the added content, i.e. energy poverty in South Asia.
Organization
In my opinion, the content is largely well-written and concise with mostly sound grammar and spelling. I still think that there is no downside to doing a quick Grammarly check just to ensure that everything is in order grammar- and spelling-wise. I feel as though the structure of the content my peer has added works well as I view it as being in accordance with the structural style and flow of the existing portions of text in this section of the article.
Overall impressions
The content contributed by my peer has undoubtedly improved the overall quality of this article. The article is more complete, now containing an entirely new section that brings into sharp focus the issue of energy poverty within South Asia. I feel as though articles like these and their continual development are essential and should be lauded given that they spotlight very real and important issues that may often be overlooked in lieu of other seemingly more pressing issues.