User:Bellsam4/User:Bellsam4/Bear claw (pastry)/Kathylamb7 Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? Bellsam4
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bellsam4/Bear claw (pastry)
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, added some details to the info chart on the right
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, clear and concise and also refers to the origin/slight history of it
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, briefly talks about process of making a bear claw which leads into the production section
- Maybe linke "Dieter Schorner" to a wikipage (if it exists)
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- N/A
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Decently concise, could split up the section to intro and lead
Lead evaluation
[edit]Overall really concise and clear, I thought that the addition of the ingredients was useful!
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, added more global references/information
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Consider the last section (Svenhard) as it might come off as biased toward one company? Not too sure about it though
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- N/A
Content evaluation
[edit]Overall good, the content is relevant and supports existing information
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Maybe the Svenhard company point
- Not sure how the reference for almond paste (citation 4) might be seen as All Recipes (to my understanding) allows many different people to share their recipes?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Solid
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes
- Are the sources current?
- Yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]All good
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes
Organization evaluation
[edit]Overall good! Maybe consider splitting up the first section into 2
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Gave more context and information on the physical build of a bear claw
- How can the content added be improved?
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall, solid article! I really liked the information that you added in a "Wiki" tone and some more historical background. If you were looking of areas to add/improve on, maybe look into any contests/fairs/conferences that might have Bear Claws as it's main focus to add a "social" aspect of it.
- Sentence in intro (One of the differences...), consider changing "besides taste" to "aside from taste"
Good luck!