User:Thekevanator/Jeshua Anderson/Brierbach Peer Review

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.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Thekevanator

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Thekevanator/sandbox
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Jeshua Anderson

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

I enjoyed your reorganization and more in depth summary in the Lead. I thought your introduction was well executed and clearly highlighted this individual's talent. You highlighted what was to come in the rest of the article while not giving too much detail. I thought the Lead was relatively strong.

Content

I thought the content overall added was informative and relative to the topic. I think you are on the process of getting this article up to date; I like how you added more current information such as his coaching career, just needs some more content if available. All of your content is relevant that has been added.

Tone and Balance

I thought the content was neutral, and no changes need to be made on tone and balance in my opinion, other than adding a little more in the coaching section if possible.

Sources and References

All of your content appears to be referenced except the high school statistics section; I could be wrong on this. The rest of your sources seemed thorough and diverse; links worked as well.

Organization

I thought you did a great job maintaining good organization of this article; all content added was to the point and the article flowed well in a chronological development. The only thing I noticed was to maybe check capitalization of some of the events he participated in in your Personal section.

Images and Media

Both images added were great contributions, well captioned, and fit the article well. Overall, I thought you did well in advancing this article. Aside from the couple of actions to check on that I mentioned, I think your article is developing great! Good work!