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:
Lead
Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Content
Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?
Organization
Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Images and Media
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?
For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
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?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?
Examples of good feedback
A 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.
yes - fusiform rust important to those learning about pinus elliotti
Is the content added up-to-date?
Can't really tell from what is currently available - no dates or citations with dates
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Explaining why fusiform rust is relevant on the Pinus elliottii page may be useful
history of the disease - is this a new problem or one that's been around?
Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral?
yes - and very entertaining to read! great job writing to the general public rather than for a publication
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
No - all seems just factual and informative - no suggested right or wrong way of doing things
Sources and References
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
2 references listed, but no citation or links - try and re-link these!
could manually input complete citation in references even if it won't link!
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Can't tell based on what's available now.
Just an opinion, but one more citation may be beneficial to edits - 3 foundational studies on the management of fusiform rust
Are the sources current?
Unsure. Seems like this was information you were very familiar with in class, so I'm sure they are!
Check a few links. Do they work?
Already mentioned, but the links weren't working on my end, so try and fix!
Organization
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Yes! This is what I was most impressed by in your draft. Your writing was advanced and used strong vocabulary, but it wasn't speaking in terms that someone outside of the field wouldnt understand. The way you structured your writing was also entertaining almost like telling a story. Great job!!
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
I did not find any!
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
yes - clear flow of ideas and explained things in a step by step manner which I really enjoyed
Images and Media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
the original article has a picture that I think should stay!
maybe consider adding a picture similar to what you showed in your presentation! I've never seen anything like that
the picture made it easier to grasp the 'rust' concept and made it more memorable (if you have time of course!
Overall - amazing job! The paragraph you contributed about fusiform rust was entertaining to read, easy to understand, and very informative. My only suggestions would be to get the two citations fixed + potentially add a third citation (if you feel it would be beneficial). If you have time, a picture of the disease in a later stage would definitely make the topic more memorable and draw people in, but it is not needed to make your edits a strong contribution!
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:
Lead
Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Content
Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?
Organization
Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Images and Media
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?
For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
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?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?
Examples of good feedback
A 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.
yes - fusiform rust important to those learning about pinus elliotti
Is the content added up-to-date?
Can't really tell from what is currently available - no dates or citations with dates
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Explaining why fusiform rust is relevant on the Pinus elliottii page may be useful
history of the disease - is this a new problem or one that's been around?
Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral?
yes - and very entertaining to read! great job writing to the general public rather than for a publication
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
No - all seems just factual and informative - no suggested right or wrong way of doing things
Sources and References
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
2 references listed, but no citation or links - try and re-link these!
could manually input complete citation in references even if it won't link!
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Can't tell based on what's available now.
Just an opinion, but one more citation may be beneficial to edits - 3 foundational studies on the management of fusiform rust
Are the sources current?
Unsure. Seems like this was information you were very familiar with in class, so I'm sure they are!
Check a few links. Do they work?
Already mentioned, but the links weren't working on my end, so try and fix!
Organization
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Yes! This is what I was most impressed by in your draft. Your writing was advanced and used strong vocabulary, but it wasn't speaking in terms that someone outside of the field wouldnt understand. The way you structured your writing was also entertaining almost like telling a story. Great job!!
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
I did not find any!
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
yes - clear flow of ideas and explained things in a step by step manner which I really enjoyed
Images and Media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
the original article has a picture that I think should stay!
maybe consider adding a picture similar to what you showed in your presentation! I've never seen anything like that
the picture made it easier to grasp the 'rust' concept and made it more memorable (if you have time of course!
Overall - amazing job! The paragraph you contributed about fusiform rust was entertaining to read, easy to understand, and very informative. My only suggestions would be to get the two citations fixed + potentially add a third citation (if you feel it would be beneficial). If you have time, a picture of the disease in a later stage would definitely make the topic more memorable and draw people in, but it is not needed to make your edits a strong contribution!