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: 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. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

Whose work are you reviewing?

User: Unreliable Information

Link to draft you're reviewing

Women in journalism

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Women in journalism

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No the lead has not updated the article according to the sandbox
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, very descriptive
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, needs to add a brief description
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe the in country section is a little overly detailed. A couple examples would be sufficient.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up to date
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not from what I saw
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes it deals with women in journalism.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral, just facts.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not from what I read
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, everything seems okay
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added is just factual information. Supports the articles and strengthens it.

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some factual information need to be cited. Mainly the beginning of the article.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) yes the article does a great job of that.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? the sources are excellent.
• Are the sources current? Some are current and some are outdated.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
• 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.) Better sources can be found, replace the old ones with new ones
• Check a few links. Do they work? Links worked

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is well written.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Content does not have any errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The Content is well organized.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but more images would be better
• Are images well-captioned? Images are well captioned
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The organization of the images could be better. More of a pattern rather than random.

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? More than meets the requirement
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes the sources do a great job of this.
• 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, I believe so.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes article is linked to plenty of other articles.

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? the content added improved the article because it added statistics of women in journalism which really strengthens the article. More would be better however.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The information added were statistics, so it really helps the article.
• How can the content added be improved? ---- I really enjoyed reading this article. It was very informative and talked about the problems women face in journalism. It is nothing but facts and has a neutral point of view. My favorite part of the article is when they give examples of women in journalism in different countries. It is very detailed and is supported by good sources. All sources seem to work when I looked them up. I would suggest to cite the facts in the beginning of the article since there seems to be fewer in the beginning than toward the end of the article. I would also suggest to add organizations that help to combat prejudices in journalism environment. That would help strengthen this article because many viewers would probably want to know what are the next steps now that you have informed them of the dangers that come from being a woman in journalism. I would also suggest to add images as it could bring the article alive and help showcase what you are informing the readers.

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.

• Peer review of "Homemaking"
• Peer review of this article about a famous painting