This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Paigelpowers Manus plate
- User:Paigelpowers/Manus Plate
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, the article is easy to read but contains a proper lead that contains valid background information.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The lead contains an intro sentence that describes the overall subject topic well and is concise.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, but I do think a little more general background could be be a positive addition to the intro.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes, the additions that were made add a lot more insight on the geology of the plate. Im unaware of how much information is out there.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Yes, the lead is insightful but to the point.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, information regarding the plate's movement and location are new additions. If there is any information regarding mm/yr velocity that would be beneficial.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, the content added seems up to date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Content remains relevant, but again I'm not sure how much more information can be added based on the sources provided.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes the content is neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No particular biased noted.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No viewpoints under or over presented.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No persuasion attempt is noted.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, 4 sources are provided
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, the sources are thorough.
- Are the sources current?
- yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- yes
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Yes
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes
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?
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?
- 4 additional sources are listed, I am unsure if there are more out there bust it seems thorough. Four notable sources may have information that can be added for this article
- 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, the pattern/organization of topic information is designed well
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- Yes!
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes much more complete
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Adding numerical values gives a lot more geologic background to the article, and this would help other areas of learning with its basic factual information. Potentially adding information regarding basic tectonic knowledge could benefit an even wider background of readers.
- How can the content added be improved?
- Add a bit more about general tectonics of the area
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Paigelpowers Manus plate
- User:Paigelpowers/Manus Plate
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, the article is easy to read but contains a proper lead that contains valid background information.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The lead contains an intro sentence that describes the overall subject topic well and is concise.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, but I do think a little more general background could be be a positive addition to the intro.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes, the additions that were made add a lot more insight on the geology of the plate. Im unaware of how much information is out there.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Yes, the lead is insightful but to the point.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, information regarding the plate's movement and location are new additions. If there is any information regarding mm/yr velocity that would be beneficial.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, the content added seems up to date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Content remains relevant, but again I'm not sure how much more information can be added based on the sources provided.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes the content is neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No particular biased noted.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No viewpoints under or over presented.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No persuasion attempt is noted.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, 4 sources are provided
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, the sources are thorough.
- Are the sources current?
- yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- yes
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Yes
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes
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?
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?
- 4 additional sources are listed, I am unsure if there are more out there bust it seems thorough. Four notable sources may have information that can be added for this article
- 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, the pattern/organization of topic information is designed well
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- Yes!
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes much more complete
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Adding numerical values gives a lot more geologic background to the article, and this would help other areas of learning with its basic factual information. Potentially adding information regarding basic tectonic knowledge could benefit an even wider background of readers.
- How can the content added be improved?
- Add a bit more about general tectonics of the area