User:Danaorow/Svenskeren/Thaoduong98 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? Danaorow
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Danaorow/Svenskeren

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead could be expanded to be more comprehensive of what is going to be covered within the article.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the introductory sentence is clear and easy to understand.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead does touch on topics that appears later in the article, but I think some of the information in the later part of the Lead should have its own section in the article. For example, you could create a new section called "Background" and talk about the player's history and how he came to be.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes, but this should be an easy fix by giving those information its own section.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise. I think that it could be expanded by providing general information about the player before discussing certain controversies and so on.

Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • The content added is relevant to the topic. The chart format present the information in a clear and organized way.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, content seems to be up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I don't know what you plan to add to your article, but the article could be expanded. Possibly add more information about League of Legend and his role in the industry.

Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content added is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, the article mainly state facts.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The article mention a few disputes, possibly talk about the accomplishments as well to provide different viewpoints.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the content state facts and are clearly sourced. It does not seem to be biased towards one perspective.

Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes. More sources could be used to make content more reliable.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Sources are thorough and reflect the content of the article.
• Are the sources current?
  • Sources could be updated.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, they do work. One link is in a different language.

Sources and references evaluation

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, the content is clear and easy to understand.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No, there is not ay significant grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes. I do think that more sections could be added to provide more information and details to this person.

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?
  • There are currently no images.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • N/a
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • N/a
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • N/a

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