User:Yairelizvg/Fresh food/MalenaVelazquez Peer Review
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]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Yairelizvg
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Yairelizvg/Fresh food
Lead
[edit]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?
Lead evaluation
[edit]In the draft the Lead have been updated with new information and better explanation. The Lead includes an introductory sentence but I think it can get better, beacuse it is kind of redundant. The Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections. It includes information that is not present in the artcilce, also, it has changes that make it easier to understand. The Lead is very well detailed, at least for that topic.
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?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content added is relevant to the topic becuse it has better information about the article. It is added up-to-date, if we get carried away with the sources. There is not content that is missing or does not belong in the article, instead, she added very good information. Because the artcile is about fresh food it does not have equity gaps and address topic related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The content addes in the draft is neutral. Because the article does have nothing to do with people, or about a controversial topic it does not have any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. Also, does not have viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader.
Sources and References
[edit]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?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The new content backed up by a reliable secondary of information. The sources are current. In both of them, I could not found the authors of the articles. The links worked and it showns in the draft by putting the information there.
Organization
[edit]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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]The content addes is concise, clear, and easy to read. I did not found any grammatical or spelling errors in the content added. I think it the sectons should be change: mention "fruit and vegetables" firts and "in cooking" second.
Images and Media
[edit]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
[edit]The article does not include images that enhance understanding of the topic.
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?
- 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]The article meet Wikipedia Notability requirements, although it is not supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the sources. There are two sources. They represent all available literature on the subject. The article follow the patterns of other similar articles, although it is a very short article. It Contains section headings. I did not find that the artcicle link to other articles.
Overall impressions
[edit]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
[edit]The content added did improve the overall quality of the article and make it more complete. The strenghts of the content added are the addition of section headings and moore sentences. I think, beacuse of the theme, the article is already improved.