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? (provide username) N2020W
- Link to draft you're reviewing: El Castillo, Chichen Itza
Lead
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, there have been no updates.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. It describes exactly what El Castillo (and its aliases) is. Nothing seems to be irrelevant.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a content box, but no sentences explaining the sections.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes-- it includes information regarding steps/size/height that is not mentioned again.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise, but again, it covers some things that aren't further discussed in the article.
Lead evaluation
The lead is generally clear and gives readers a good overview of El Castillo/Kukulcán. It just has information that isn't included in the rest of the article. I feel that the last sentence of the 4th paragraph is definitely worth explaining more. It also appears to be lacking a lot of citations.
Content
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content is relevant.
- Is the content added up-to-date? It appears the most recent content/sources are from 2018, so there are potentially more recent points or sources that could be added.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything that is in there fits in. However, it feels short, so I'm not sure if there might be sections with more information that you might be able to add.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.
Content evaluation
The content that is available is all relevant, but there is potentially newer data/sources that could be added. Overall, it feels like there could just be more information in general; the article is relatively short and could cover more aspects.
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes, everything is neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there is no bias.
- 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? Not at all.
Tone and balance evaluation
Tone is great! Doesn't have any bias.
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new content added, so no.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sources appear to be thorough.
- Are the sources current? Relatively current; could potentially be newer (if newer information is available.)
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No. The majority of sources are covered by the same 2-3 authors, with very few other inputs.
- Check a few links. Do they work? There are only two sources with available links. One of them (source 18) is broken and takes you to an error page; the other one would not load at all for me. Not sure if this was an issue with my computer/internet or with the link.
Sources and references evaluation
Sources could use a lot of work. There is a ton of information throughout the article, including in the lead, that feels like it needs citations. The provided sources are from limited authors, and the two links that are provided do not work.
Organization
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, everything is generally easy to follow and read.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any grammatical/spelling errors.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, there are sections and information in them is mostly relevant. However, I feel that there is some information within the "inside the pyramid" section that might not necessarily belong there, as it talks more about location of the pyramid/the outside of the pyramid than what is inside of it.
Organization evaluation
Organization is generally good, but some information appears to potentially be in the wrong section.
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. There is a full gallery with helpful images as well as a map and a graph in the article.
- Are images well-captioned? Yes. They are informative and easy to understand.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? They appear to be.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. The gallery, specifically, is helpful and laid out nicely.
Images and media evaluation
Overall, images definitely help with comprehension/adding a visual to the content. They are clear and concise and do not appear to have any issues.
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No content has been added.
- What are the strengths of the content added? No content has been added.
- How can the content added be improved? No content has been added.
Overall evaluation
Overall, it looks like there's a good amount of work that could be done for you to improve this article! I think you have plenty of opportunities to add information and make the article better. 5 suggestions:
- Make sure the information in the lead is covered in the rest of the article.
- Add citations! It seems like there's a lot of info that isn't cited throughout the article. For example, there is no citation for "The structure is 24 m (79 ft) high, plus an additional 6 m (20 ft) for the temple at the top. The square base measures 55.3 m (181 ft) across," which definitely seems like something that needs to be cited.
- Try to find citations from various authors and that are easily accessible for those viewing the article. There are very few authors cited in this article.
- Make sure all information is in the correct section.
- I think you could maybe add a new section or two, as the topic feels like it would have more available information than is provided. The article feels a bit short and could use some different sections/further explanations!
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? (provide username) N2020W
- Link to draft you're reviewing: El Castillo, Chichen Itza
Lead
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, there have been no updates.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. It describes exactly what El Castillo (and its aliases) is. Nothing seems to be irrelevant.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a content box, but no sentences explaining the sections.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes-- it includes information regarding steps/size/height that is not mentioned again.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise, but again, it covers some things that aren't further discussed in the article.
Lead evaluation
The lead is generally clear and gives readers a good overview of El Castillo/Kukulcán. It just has information that isn't included in the rest of the article. I feel that the last sentence of the 4th paragraph is definitely worth explaining more. It also appears to be lacking a lot of citations.
Content
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content is relevant.
- Is the content added up-to-date? It appears the most recent content/sources are from 2018, so there are potentially more recent points or sources that could be added.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything that is in there fits in. However, it feels short, so I'm not sure if there might be sections with more information that you might be able to add.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.
Content evaluation
The content that is available is all relevant, but there is potentially newer data/sources that could be added. Overall, it feels like there could just be more information in general; the article is relatively short and could cover more aspects.
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes, everything is neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there is no bias.
- 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? Not at all.
Tone and balance evaluation
Tone is great! Doesn't have any bias.
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new content added, so no.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sources appear to be thorough.
- Are the sources current? Relatively current; could potentially be newer (if newer information is available.)
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No. The majority of sources are covered by the same 2-3 authors, with very few other inputs.
- Check a few links. Do they work? There are only two sources with available links. One of them (source 18) is broken and takes you to an error page; the other one would not load at all for me. Not sure if this was an issue with my computer/internet or with the link.
Sources and references evaluation
Sources could use a lot of work. There is a ton of information throughout the article, including in the lead, that feels like it needs citations. The provided sources are from limited authors, and the two links that are provided do not work.
Organization
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, everything is generally easy to follow and read.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any grammatical/spelling errors.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, there are sections and information in them is mostly relevant. However, I feel that there is some information within the "inside the pyramid" section that might not necessarily belong there, as it talks more about location of the pyramid/the outside of the pyramid than what is inside of it.
Organization evaluation
Organization is generally good, but some information appears to potentially be in the wrong section.
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. There is a full gallery with helpful images as well as a map and a graph in the article.
- Are images well-captioned? Yes. They are informative and easy to understand.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? They appear to be.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. The gallery, specifically, is helpful and laid out nicely.
Images and media evaluation
Overall, images definitely help with comprehension/adding a visual to the content. They are clear and concise and do not appear to have any issues.
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No content has been added.
- What are the strengths of the content added? No content has been added.
- How can the content added be improved? No content has been added.
Overall evaluation
Overall, it looks like there's a good amount of work that could be done for you to improve this article! I think you have plenty of opportunities to add information and make the article better. 5 suggestions:
- Make sure the information in the lead is covered in the rest of the article.
- Add citations! It seems like there's a lot of info that isn't cited throughout the article. For example, there is no citation for "The structure is 24 m (79 ft) high, plus an additional 6 m (20 ft) for the temple at the top. The square base measures 55.3 m (181 ft) across," which definitely seems like something that needs to be cited.
- Try to find citations from various authors and that are easily accessible for those viewing the article. There are very few authors cited in this article.
- Make sure all information is in the correct section.
- I think you could maybe add a new section or two, as the topic feels like it would have more available information than is provided. The article feels a bit short and could use some different sections/further explanations!