Peer review This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) I am reviewing R.Coles article on Lapita Culture.
Link to draft you're reviewing: Lapita culture Lead Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There has been no update in the lead to reflect the new content added by my peer. The article seems to be an established article with multiple people editing it. The history page has many edits with different editors attached to it.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The beginning sentence gives an insight to the Lapita culture and what will be discussed
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Right below the first paragraph, there is an entire contents page dedicated to the sections within the article.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead does not include information that is not present in the rest of the article. All the content written in the first paragraph, is written throughout the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is written well and not overly detailed. The information written in the lead reflect well the information detailed throughout the entire article without giving all the information away.
Lead evaluation -- Overall, the leading paragraph is written well and paints a clear picture of the information that will be discussed throughout the article. It is not overly detailed and contains the proper information necessary to deduce what the rest of the article is about.
Content Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is completely relevant to the topic and echos the leading message.
Is the content added up-to-date? The most recent revision was done in September 27, 2020 by a user named Dawnseeker2000.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content seems to be missing. According to the leading paragraph, there are 14 topics which will be discussed in the article. All the topics, are present within the article.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I would say that the article deals with a historically underrepresented population because, honestly, I have never heard of the Lapita culture before. It is amazing to find this type of information and learn more about a culture I have never heard about before.
Content evaluation-- The content within the article is well written and gives a good historical view on the Lapita culture. I would say there could be a bit more written on the subject, however, this may be the only information available. If so, the creators of this article did an amazing job.
Tone and Balance Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral? The content added does have a neutral tone and does not seem to be leaning into any specific side.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? In any article, there is the possibility of their being bias. This article does not show any bias in my opinion. It shows a clear appreciation of the Lupita culture and a want to educate others.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints within the article are not overrepresented or underrepresented. It seems to be neutral with a clear consideration of the facts.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added does not seem to persuade the reader in favor of any particular position.
Tone and balance evaluation -- Overall, the tone and balance of the article seem neutral. There is no underlying message within the article attempting to point the reader in any particular direction. The article pointed out the facts as they deem true of the Lupita culture -- which when discussing any topic is the best that one can do.
Sources and References Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most/if not all of the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source with links directly to it.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are currently 24 references and 11 sources in the article. After reading, I can conclude that the ones used reflect the known available literature on the topic.
Are the sources current? The sources are current with the most recent reference written in 2018.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? At first glance, the articles seems to be written by a diverse group. However, the names on some of the references are difficult to see because the first names are initials only.
Check a few links. Do they work? When clicking on a few of the link, they all worked and led to a separate website with another article.
Sources and references evaluation-- The sources used in the article are relevant to the topic. The sources are also up-to-date. Throughout the article, the references and sources are seen in the writing and provide depth to the article.
Organization Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well written - with clear and concise view. The article was easy to read and understand.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is seems there to be a couple of grammatical errors but mostly with miss used commas. However, nothing major!
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added is all well-organized with clear marked sections stating the topic that will be discussed in each section.
Organization evaluation-- The organization of the article was done very well. There are clearly marked sections in the contents section that dictate what will be spoken about in the article.
Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media --
my peer did not add any media, however, there was already images in the article.
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does include images that enhance the understand of the topic. These images give examples of tools that could of possibly been used by the individuals in the Lupita culture.
Are images well-captioned? The images are well captioned
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The images are adhere to the copyright regulations
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images could be laid out in a more visually appealing way.
Images and media evaluation The overall images and media evaluation is okay. The positioning of the images could be more appealing. However, the images do add to the value of the article and make a wonder addition.
For New Articles Only -- N/A 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? 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? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added definitely added to the value and quality of the article.
What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added is that it gives the article more information to understand the Lupitina culture.
How can the content added be improved? I believe the media of the article could be arranged better in order to look more appealing to the eye.
Overall evaluation-- The overall evaluation of the article is that is what written and done very well. There are some grammatical errors that could be fixed as well as media positioning however the article was done very well.
Peer review This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) I am reviewing R.Coles article on Lapita Culture.
Link to draft you're reviewing: Lapita culture Lead Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There has been no update in the lead to reflect the new content added by my peer. The article seems to be an established article with multiple people editing it. The history page has many edits with different editors attached to it.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The beginning sentence gives an insight to the Lapita culture and what will be discussed
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Right below the first paragraph, there is an entire contents page dedicated to the sections within the article.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead does not include information that is not present in the rest of the article. All the content written in the first paragraph, is written throughout the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is written well and not overly detailed. The information written in the lead reflect well the information detailed throughout the entire article without giving all the information away.
Lead evaluation -- Overall, the leading paragraph is written well and paints a clear picture of the information that will be discussed throughout the article. It is not overly detailed and contains the proper information necessary to deduce what the rest of the article is about.
Content Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is completely relevant to the topic and echos the leading message.
Is the content added up-to-date? The most recent revision was done in September 27, 2020 by a user named Dawnseeker2000.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content seems to be missing. According to the leading paragraph, there are 14 topics which will be discussed in the article. All the topics, are present within the article.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I would say that the article deals with a historically underrepresented population because, honestly, I have never heard of the Lapita culture before. It is amazing to find this type of information and learn more about a culture I have never heard about before.
Content evaluation-- The content within the article is well written and gives a good historical view on the Lapita culture. I would say there could be a bit more written on the subject, however, this may be the only information available. If so, the creators of this article did an amazing job.
Tone and Balance Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral? The content added does have a neutral tone and does not seem to be leaning into any specific side.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? In any article, there is the possibility of their being bias. This article does not show any bias in my opinion. It shows a clear appreciation of the Lupita culture and a want to educate others.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints within the article are not overrepresented or underrepresented. It seems to be neutral with a clear consideration of the facts.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content added does not seem to persuade the reader in favor of any particular position.
Tone and balance evaluation -- Overall, the tone and balance of the article seem neutral. There is no underlying message within the article attempting to point the reader in any particular direction. The article pointed out the facts as they deem true of the Lupita culture -- which when discussing any topic is the best that one can do.
Sources and References Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most/if not all of the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source with links directly to it.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are currently 24 references and 11 sources in the article. After reading, I can conclude that the ones used reflect the known available literature on the topic.
Are the sources current? The sources are current with the most recent reference written in 2018.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? At first glance, the articles seems to be written by a diverse group. However, the names on some of the references are difficult to see because the first names are initials only.
Check a few links. Do they work? When clicking on a few of the link, they all worked and led to a separate website with another article.
Sources and references evaluation-- The sources used in the article are relevant to the topic. The sources are also up-to-date. Throughout the article, the references and sources are seen in the writing and provide depth to the article.
Organization Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well written - with clear and concise view. The article was easy to read and understand.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is seems there to be a couple of grammatical errors but mostly with miss used commas. However, nothing major!
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added is all well-organized with clear marked sections stating the topic that will be discussed in each section.
Organization evaluation-- The organization of the article was done very well. There are clearly marked sections in the contents section that dictate what will be spoken about in the article.
Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media --
my peer did not add any media, however, there was already images in the article.
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does include images that enhance the understand of the topic. These images give examples of tools that could of possibly been used by the individuals in the Lupita culture.
Are images well-captioned? The images are well captioned
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The images are adhere to the copyright regulations
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images could be laid out in a more visually appealing way.
Images and media evaluation The overall images and media evaluation is okay. The positioning of the images could be more appealing. However, the images do add to the value of the article and make a wonder addition.
For New Articles Only -- N/A 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? 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? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added definitely added to the value and quality of the article.
What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added is that it gives the article more information to understand the Lupitina culture.
How can the content added be improved? I believe the media of the article could be arranged better in order to look more appealing to the eye.
Overall evaluation-- The overall evaluation of the article is that is what written and done very well. There are some grammatical errors that could be fixed as well as media positioning however the article was done very well.