User:Zachprince6/sandbox
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]- Annie Barry
- COGnitive Gaming
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]- I am reviewing the article belong too Annie Barry
- Link to the article: Cognitive neuroscience
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]- Whose work are you reviewing? Annie Barry
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Cognitive psychology
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.
![]() | This is a user sandbox of Zachprince6. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the place where you work on your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. Visit your Dashboard course page and follow the links for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |