User:Mylar mylar/Johanna Hurme/JonKim44 Peer Review
Appearance
Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
- Mylar mylar
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Johanna Hurme
Lead
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, the spelling edits and style of language has been revised
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The Lead does begin with an introductory sentence followed by a brief overview of the main topic.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- The Lead touches upon the major section following the Lead.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, everything mention was later expanded upon.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The Lead is brief and concise.
Lead evaluation
Content
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No the content surrounds the journey of Johanna Hurme, not just a collection of random works
Content evaluation
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- The author does not offer any bias.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- There is a well-balanced ratio of attention applied to each project.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, the content does not sway the viewer to an opinion .
Tone and balance evaluation
Sources and References
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
Organization
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The language of writing is high-level, perhaps a bit too sophisticated.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Yes, however I marked these areas as points to fix and has been revised.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes the structure is very easy to follow.
Organization evaluation
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes, the visual aid assists in providing imagery to the narrative.
- Are images well-captioned?
- Yes
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes
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?
- Yes, the article has a high number of reliable sources.
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- The list is a bit too much, however I believe the high number is attributed to cross referencing.
- 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, the article falls within a familiar style of Wikipedia.
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- Yes
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?
- Yes, the article contains a versatile outlook on Johanna Hurme's architectural journey.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- The structure is simple and easy to follow.
- How can the content added be improved?
- The language style can be less sophisticated/complicated