User:Jalyn547/Pain scale/Nicolemicha 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?
Jaylyn 547

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jalyn547/Pain_scale/Nicolemicha_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Pain scale

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: I do not see the lead being updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. I see the paragraph of new information and believe a lead could come from that information.

Content: The content that is added is relevant to the topic and features more background information about pain, which ties into pain scales. The content is also up to date as it talks about pain in an objective manner. I do believe some content is missing since I only see one paragraph added so far. I could assume more information will be added as our assignments of Wikipedia editing continues.

Tone and Balance: The information that is added does have a neutral tone and there aren't any claims that are biased towards a perspective on pain. The tone of the paragraph is simply stating the experience of pain in a universal and broad way. When thinking about overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints, I believe there aren't enough viewpoints yet to determine this. Perhaps some more information will allow for a dissection of the quality of representation. However, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader to favor one position or the other. The information is neutral and features a definition that applies universally.

Sources and Information: I do not see a reference section, therefore, I would assume the new content has a reference, just not put in yet. To determine if the sources are thorough, current, written in a diverse spectrum of authors, or reflected in the article, I believe they would need to be added.

Organization: The content was concise and clear and easy to read, and I did not see any grammatical errors. To determine if all the information to be added was organized well, I would suggest to add more.

Images and Media: I do not see any added images or media

Overall Impressions: I believe the information added to the article is a great place to start when editing the article. I suggest for more information to be added and organized as well as more sources backing up the edits on the article. A strength from the article would be its neutral standpoint and I believe more improvement could be made through adding more information.