User:Madeline Bailey/California species of special concern/PresleyThor 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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Madeline Bailey
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Madeline%20Bailey/California_species_of_special_concern?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template Her sandbox
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- California species of special concern
Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
I don’t think there appears to be a lead, at leas there isn’t anything under the section titled “lead”. But the introductory sentence is good and explains SSC or CSC and how it’s defined/designated.
Your added content is relevant to the topic and seems to be up to date. You r content also appears to be neutral, but I think you could expand more upon these species of special concern. Your source looks credible and is cited and accurately reflects what the cited source says. I think you could add more sources and more information to make this a more substantial article. I was not able to get the links to work when I clicked on the cited source. I noticed there was only that one source you used, and the article itself only has 2 listed so I would definitely add more sources. I liked how you organized everything, it was concise and easy to read, there did not appear to be any errors. I think you should also add images and media to enhance the article. I think you did well unplagarizing this article and editing it, and should make more edits.
It does not look like your edits were published to the official article, but I know you were having issues with that as was I. I have not been able to get any of my work to publish.