User:Bellaruby12/Environmental issues in New York City/Planariaworm 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?

Bellaruby12, Anaeradze, Gcuties

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bellaruby12/Environmental issues in New York City
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Environmental issues in New York City

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead shows a good introduction to the topic of aggression in people from NYC, which relates to behavior
It lacks a solid introductory sentence
There is a brief description of the study of chemical pathways that cause aggression

Content

The sections about the connection between aggression, noise pollution, and air pollution are accurate to the theme of behavior and environmental issues on NYC. The section about mice population does not seem like it is related to the topic/doesn't belong in the article
The information added is up to date but there is only one source for the many claims in the draft

Tone & Balance

In certain parts the tone is not neutral, for example when saying "Every native or non-native New Yorker has had they day ruined by either a smelly homeless person on the train" and "subconsciously it brings the worst out of us". Those parts indicate the writer's personal opinions

Sources & References

Most of the article draft has no sources for its claims
The one source is accurately referenced when talking about aggression

Organization

There are multiple grammar mistakes that should be fixed

Some of the topics in the "other issues" section need their own separate headings

Images & Media

There are no images (try to add some)

Overall Impressions

There as a good amount of information regarding the connections between air pollution, noise pollution, and aggression in people from NYC which pertains to the subject of behavior and would work well in the article. There are a few issues in the draft like the grammar mistakes, lack of sources/pictures, and non neutral language which should be addressed before adding it to the article.

Thank you for your review---Ana Eradze