User:Ixamaris Cruz/Design/PMG2020UPRC Peer Review

Peer review

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

General info

• Reviewing Ixamaris cruz work
• Link to draft you're reviewing: . User:Ixamaris Cruz/Design

Lead

Guiding questions:

• The Lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer.
• The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
• The Lead is mostly concise.

Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions:

• The content is relevant to the topic and added up-to-date. Last edit was on October 11 2020.
• Content includes many design types.
• The article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it address topics related to history.

Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• The content is added neutral there is no manipulation or personal information.
• The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Not all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
• I personally did not see sources thorough - i.e.
• Most of the sources are current and open.
• Some links work.

Sources and references evaluation

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Content is well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read.
• The content added has no grammatical or spelling errors.

Organization evaluation

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• The article could use more images related to the topic.
• The two images are well-captioned.
• Not all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
• The images are not really laid out in a visually appealing way.

Images and media evaluation

For New Articles Only

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?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation