User:23hjt/Grace Akallo/SJack4 Peer Review
Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing? User 23hjt
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Grace Akallo -- I'm looking at the contribution differences between 23kjt's edits and the article as it existed before
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There are no major sections to the article.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead is the article.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead could be more concise if it was actually made into a lead.
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? I think the added content is mostly links, which are relevant.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I added this to the talk page, but Reference 3 is a link that doesn't work. Her education could be added as its own section, or could be added to her bio info in the top right box. There is no citation for her major in communications nor for what she did after her education. Reference 12 is also a link that doesn't work.
Tone and Balance[edit]
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?
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
The content is neutral but I am changing it so that throughout the article it refers to her by Akallo, because I think it is a subtle form of sexism to refer to a young woman by her first name when almost all other articles refer to their subject by their last name.
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
There are numerous problems with the links, which I've left on the article's talk page. Links 1, 2, 3, 12, 13 do not lead to accessible webpages.
Organization[edit]
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?
Organization evaluation[edit]
The only added content is links.
Images and Media[edit]
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?
Images and media evaluation[edit]
N/a
For New Articles Only[edit]
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[edit]
N/a
Overall impressions[edit]
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?
Overall evaluation[edit]
Added links and minor grammar edits are good, relevant, and help improve the article. Is there anything more substantial that could be added? This article could definitely do with some more headings/sections. Make sure you check the pre-existing links. I also think that this article could really use a picture. Info about her education could be added to her bio box (but I'm not sure how to do this).