Jump to content

User:Zachprince6/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I think the introductory sentence could be a little more clear for users who aren't gamers.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead doesn't really have a main section it looks like it's just the start.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All the information is present in the article.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant. It just needs to be more descriptive.
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content is up-to-date. Cease of operations being in 2016.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything belongs there it seems as though there could be more content added on the subject.

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? Yes
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all.

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The contact is backed up by a reliable source of information.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they are.
  • Are the sources current? The sources are current.
  • Check a few links. Do they work? The second link did not work. The rest worked.

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it's well written.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No all spelling and grammar appears to be correct.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Images and Media

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, this article needs more images.
  • Are images well-captioned? No.
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Only 1 image and yes.
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

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? Yes
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No there could be more sources added.
  • 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
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes it links to a few other articles.

New Article Evaluation

[edit]

Overall impressions

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Needs to have more information on the subject added to the article. It's a great start.
  • What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is accurate and informative however there is very little presented on the subject.
  • How can the content added be improved? Add more information and paragraphs.

Overall evaluation

[edit]

Needs improvement.

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]

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • The lead has been updated.
  • The lead of this article is clear and concise.
  • The lead is easy to follow.
  • No information is included in the article that is not present and outlined.
  • The lead is concise and does not include too much information or over detailed.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • The content is relevant.
  • The content is up-to-date.
  • There is no missing content everything is up-to-date.

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • The content added is neutral.
  • No claims appear to be biased.
  • The viewpoints are neither overrepresented or underrepresented.
  • The content does not persuade readers to believe a certain way. Everything is neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Yes the source is reliable.
  • The sources are thorough and reflect the literature on the topic.
  • Sources are current.
  • The links all work correctly.

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • The content is very well written.
  • The content does not appear to have spelling or grammatical errors.
  • Everything appears to be well organized and done very professionally.

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Images and Media

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • There have been no images added to this page. Images can be added for improvement.

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

For New Articles Only

[edit]

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

  • There are at least 2-3 reliable sources on the topic.
  • The sources accurately represent all listed information on the topic.
  • Yes the pattern of this article is very similar to other articles. It appears to be professional and organized.
  • There are a few links to other articles.

New Article Evaluation

[edit]

Overall impressions

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • The article is almost complete and looks very promising.
  • The strengths of this article are that it is well organized and follows a great pattern. It has good flow.
  • Pictures can be added to improve article overall.

Overall evaluation

[edit]

Great article so far would love to see some pictures included to really catch the interest of readers.

Peer review[edit]

[edit]

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit]

[edit]

Lead[edit]

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it includes a great introduction to the sentence. It's clear and easy to follow.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes there is a description it's brief but informative.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise and has great details however it's not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation[edit]

[edit]

Content[edit]

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it's relevant.
  • Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up to date.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There isn't any content missing or things that do not belong.

Content evaluation[edit]

[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? Yes the content is neutral there are no biases.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that are biased everything is neutral.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No everything is right on point.
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]

[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the content is all backed up.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They reflect most of the literature on the topic however I feel there is more to choose from.
  • Are the sources current? Yes they are current.
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes I clicked on a few and they all worked.

Sources and references evaluation[edit]

[edit]

Organization[edit]

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it's well written and concise.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the content is broken down into sections.

Organization evaluation[edit]

[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Could use more images.
  • Are images well-captioned? Yes the images are there.
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes they are appealing.

Images and media evaluation[edit]

[edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

[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]

[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
  • What are the strengths of the content added? This is a great article with a lot of useful information.
  • How can the content added be improved? There could be more pictures involved to help people visualize.

Overall evaluation[edit]

[edit]

Great article with only minor details needed.