User:CyrisA/Zay Flowers/Trijanas 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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

CYRIS

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:CyrisA/Zay Flowers:

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead[edit]

The lead in this article has not been update to reflect or help this article at all. I'm not sure if the article is still being worked on but nothing is updated yet.

Content[edit]

The added content provides relevant information about an allegation of domestic violence involving Jay Flowers, a wide receiver for the Baltimore Raven. The content is up-to-date, as it mentions the suspension of the police investigation as of February 16. However, the content lacks detail about the outcome of the investigation or any updates on the situation. This does not directly address historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance[edit]

The content appears to have a neutral tone, presenting factual information about the situation without taking a biased position. There are no apparent clams claims that heavily favor one position over another. However, viewpoints from Flowers or other involved parties are not represented, which could provide a more balanced perspective. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any particular position.

Sources and References[edit]

The content is not backed up by any reliable sources or citations.

Organization[edit]

The content is clear, and easy to read, with no apparent grammatical or spelling errors. There is no organization of the content, or where it would be placed in the sections of this article. However, the content could be further organized providing background information, investigation updates, and people involved.

Images and Media[edit]

No images were added to this article .

Overall impressions[edit]

The content added contributes to the article by giving an event that happened in Zay Flowers life. This is the only strength of the article. To improve, pictures could be added. verify what section this could be under, using citations, and a source could help for reliability of the information was given and people involved to paint a better picture.