User:Ahdavis07/The Quadroons (short story)/Bbelliott1875 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

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
  • I'm reviewing Group Three's article on "The Quadroons."
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Ahdavis07/The Quadroons (short story)

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • N/A
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • N/A
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • N/A
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • N/A
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • N/A

Lead evaluation

Currently, this article doesn't possess a Lead.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Generally, yes. Everything added is appropriate for the article, but the language could use a tune-up. Also, some more sources wouldn't hurt.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • It seems to be.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I think the "Themes" section could use a little work. It definitely belongs in the article, but I think "Love" and "Death" are a little weak. Is there anything else we can delve into there?

Content evaluation

Overall, it's decent content, but the language needs a little work here and there.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, it is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, you do a good job of remaining neutral.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • I think we could add some more meat to most of this article's sections. Right now, "Themes" stands out as being a little starved. It basically reads as a restatement of the plot, and it could be much more than that.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, it's as objective as it should be.

Tone and balance evaluation

Again, my prime interest here is to see a little bit more information thrown in the mix here. You've got a good skeleton, and, if you get some more sources/ tighten up your language, you could have a killer article.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Mostly, the sources seem fine. However, I'm curious what the Good Reads inclusion is for. You also don't need to cite every line if you're using the same source.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • While I haven't looked too deeply into what scholarship exists on this topic, I would presume that these sources are what could be found.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes.

Sources and references evaluation

You could look at incorporating some more sources, and you should look at the location/ frequency of your citations as well.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Like I said above, the language is kind of clunky. I would go back over this with a fine-tooth comb.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Yes, some of the article is pretty rife with errors. I'd go over the whole thing carefully.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • I would say so.

Organization evaluation

Mainly, you should look at how things are said. There's a fair amount of grammatical errors/ weird phrasing.

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?

Images and media evaluation

The article currently has no images.

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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes, you've added in a nice basis of info that's super appropriate for a first draft.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • You've got a decent foundation here. With a little editing and addition, you'll be paid back exponentially.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • I think more information/ stronger writing are the most important things to look at this time.

Overall evaluation

You've got a decent place to start from. With a little fine-tuning, you should be in great shape in no time.