 | 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 Resources |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Njpierce16
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Njpierce16/Woodland Park, Colorado
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Woodland Park, Colorado
The drafted changes for the lead for this page incorporate the original text but also adds additional information that leads into the areas covered on the page. A brief history and overall summary of the topic is also covered in the lead. The lead could include a clearer description of the pages main topics. Although additional information was added, the lead is still concise and and not overly detailed.
The content of the drafted changes is relevant to the topic and addresses additional important characteristics of the topic. The content is also up-to-date with sources that are relevant and useful. The article does not specifically deal with one of Wikipedia's ethical gaps but that is not an issue because the content is made to be informative.
In terms of the tone and balance, the drafted changes remain neutral and I was unable to notice any sign of bias. The content of the drafted changes also does not seem to try and persuade the reader in any way but is informative in manner.
The content of the drafted changes seems to be backed up by reliable sources. Most of the sources are however not peer-reviewed or considered scholarly articles. The sources are current and add to the overall usefulness of the page. The sources also come from a variety of writers and websites.
The organization of the drafted changes is easy to follow and concise. The content is also well-written and well-organized with no grammatical or spelling-errors.
The drafted changes do not include images, but there are tables that illustrate information from the drafted changes.
Overall, the content added to the page is relevant and, in my opinion, has added to the overall quality of the article. The strengths of the content added include the parks and recreation section which was well-done.
| 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 Resources |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Njpierce16
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Njpierce16/Woodland Park, Colorado
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Woodland Park, Colorado
The drafted changes for the lead for this page incorporate the original text but also adds additional information that leads into the areas covered on the page. A brief history and overall summary of the topic is also covered in the lead. The lead could include a clearer description of the pages main topics. Although additional information was added, the lead is still concise and and not overly detailed.
The content of the drafted changes is relevant to the topic and addresses additional important characteristics of the topic. The content is also up-to-date with sources that are relevant and useful. The article does not specifically deal with one of Wikipedia's ethical gaps but that is not an issue because the content is made to be informative.
In terms of the tone and balance, the drafted changes remain neutral and I was unable to notice any sign of bias. The content of the drafted changes also does not seem to try and persuade the reader in any way but is informative in manner.
The content of the drafted changes seems to be backed up by reliable sources. Most of the sources are however not peer-reviewed or considered scholarly articles. The sources are current and add to the overall usefulness of the page. The sources also come from a variety of writers and websites.
The organization of the drafted changes is easy to follow and concise. The content is also well-written and well-organized with no grammatical or spelling-errors.
The drafted changes do not include images, but there are tables that illustrate information from the drafted changes.
Overall, the content added to the page is relevant and, in my opinion, has added to the overall quality of the article. The strengths of the content added include the parks and recreation section which was well-done.