User:Emilyhg.371/2019 Visayas earthquake/Huzmir1014 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?

Emilyhg

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emilyhg.371/2019_Visayas_earthquake?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): 2019 Eastern Samar earthquake

Evaluate the drafted changes

This draft is very well developed, including 3 new subsections the group wishes to add to the article as well as 5 sources. Firstly, the group has created three well developed paragraphs that follow new themes that they have outlined; geography, first hand accounts, and damages. All three of these themes are new and not present in the article as well as article ready, being fully sourced, grammatically correct, and properly formatted. A minor criticism is that the 5 sources are not completely credible, including sources from CNN and "volcanodiscovery.com". Though these are fine for preliminary information I would suggest finding more credible and reliable sourcing for further additions, such as from peer reviewed journals or peer reviewed documents. A second very minor change I would suggest is finding away to organize the three subheading topics they have into one larger heading to better fit into the article formatting wise. At this point the group is very well off and has concrete and article ready changes with many references. This group is set and head of the game and I'm excited to see what they come up with.

Darshil Talati

Thank you for your feedback. I agree that some of the sources are not the most credible. It's just difficult to find sources that meet Wikipedia's strict criteria while still having enough information to make a significant contribution to the article. We may get rid of the first-hand account section and incorporate it into the other sections but we're probably gonna keep the geography and damages section separate because that seems to be common among featured articles about earthquakes.