User:Sarahhelennicholson/Women Who Kill/Reemslim 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?

Sarahhelennicholson

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sarahhelennicholson/Women Who Kill
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Women Who Kill

Evaluate the drafted changes

After reading the current version of the article, and the new draft; it is evident that there are some differences between the two. The original version goes into more detail about the ending of the movie, and the resolution of what happens to Morgan, while the revised version ends the plot summary at "Alex went missing". This is something I think can be worked on. The revised version of the article leaves out important information about the plot, it does not allow the audience a full summary of the movie. I understand not wanting to spoil the ender to those readers who have not yet seen the film, however this can be done by creating a section and heading it "conclusion", to both warn the reader and appease their desire to know the ending.

The article is backed up with relevant, recent, and credible sources that have working links. This is something I think you did very well- it could also be beneficial to create a section in your article that summarizes the reviews the movie got (think rottentomatoes, rating out of 5 stars, etc.).

Although I do believe the content added is valuable, I also think the content that was removed is valuable as well. I understand not wanting to over summarize a movie plot, however adding specific details like the passport being lit on fire, and Morgan waking up to Simone clipping her nails is not important in the grander picture- especially to an audience who has yet to see the movie. This may be something you consider revising, keeping it broad but hitting the main points, or climaxes, of the movie will help create a better plot summary than focusing on the details!

The article is written very well and maintains an unbiased tone, it uses neutral language as well as great organizational skills. I appreciate the appropriate headers and sections that allow the audience to be guided through the article. Furthermore, there are not many uses of images, however the addition of the chart that portrays the different awards the film won, is a great addition! I do think that using images, such as the movie cover, could add more character to the article and allow the audience to visualize the movie more.

Overall the article is great, and I enjoyed the changes from the original. My only advice would be that details aren't always beneficiary, or needed, and to focus on the larger picture- as well as to add images! Great job- Reem Slim.

Hey reemslim, nice work on this peer review. I especially like the suggestion to add a table summarizing the reviews in a reception section. I hope that Sarahhelennicholson considers it. Groceryheist (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Also @Reemslim: by the way it looks like a different Wikipedia editor added the plot section to the article after Sarahhelennicholson copied it to her sandbox.

Thank you reemslim for the great evaluation! I just noticed that the original article had a plot added as pointed out above, I just finished watching the film for the second time so I could get a better understanding and I'm going to update my knowledge with the existing plot now. Thanks again! - Sarahhelennicholson 15:49, 4 February 2021