![]() | 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 |
TL017
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)
The was no lead at the time of the peer review.
The content added is relevant to the original topic and is somewhat up to date, but it is frequent enough to still be considered relevant for this topic. There isn't any information that doesn't belong or missing necessarily. It would be beneficial to have more information and details. Right now, the content is about three sentences long. I would like to know a bit more about adult-oriented clay animation. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or address topics related tp historically underrepresented populations.
The content added is neutral. There are no claims that are heavily biased. The content added does not push the reader a certain way. It is overall, very neutral and fact based.
The content is backed up by reliable sources, and all the content used is correct with the source information. The sources are current, but they are not by a very diverse range of authors. There are no scholarly sources. The links provided do work.
It is written well, organized, and I did not see any grammar or spelling mistakes.
There were no images added.
Overall, I think the content added will be beneficial to the article. I think there needs to be more detail and information on the topic of the content added, but this is a good start!
![]() | 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 |
TL017
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)
The was no lead at the time of the peer review.
The content added is relevant to the original topic and is somewhat up to date, but it is frequent enough to still be considered relevant for this topic. There isn't any information that doesn't belong or missing necessarily. It would be beneficial to have more information and details. Right now, the content is about three sentences long. I would like to know a bit more about adult-oriented clay animation. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or address topics related tp historically underrepresented populations.
The content added is neutral. There are no claims that are heavily biased. The content added does not push the reader a certain way. It is overall, very neutral and fact based.
The content is backed up by reliable sources, and all the content used is correct with the source information. The sources are current, but they are not by a very diverse range of authors. There are no scholarly sources. The links provided do work.
It is written well, organized, and I did not see any grammar or spelling mistakes.
There were no images added.
Overall, I think the content added will be beneficial to the article. I think there needs to be more detail and information on the topic of the content added, but this is a good start!