Knowledge

User:Amdoubleu/Baby Be-Bop/Kerrymonique Peer Review

Source 📝

124:
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do see some sections that could be expanded upon. The first sentence in the plot where Dirk McDonald is introduced. I think the author could add more information on Dirks background. The rest of the plot looks
298:
requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? The article is rated a C which is considered a low standard. So, I believe it meets the standard, however for the purpose of this assignment it meets the purpose of
305:
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? The article flows well, has neutrality and is balance but there is room for
335:
How can the content added be improved? I would like to see a few more pictures (the imaginary settings) expand more on the plot and add some reviews as a link. Otherwise the article's picture is eye catching and the new improvements look
327:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content that was added made a big improvement from the older version. As mentioned more content should be added, pictures and
331:
What are the strengths of the content added? The author made the article a lot more interesting by going deep into the history of the lawsuit, issues with publishing, and the history of the books first public
156:
In the plot it looks like the author gave his opinion on Dirk not being happy because he had a secret. That could appear to the reader as being a little bias. I'm not sure that it is completely bias though
238:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clearly written and touches on many different dimensions such as; challenges the book had with publishing
244:
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is organized well and the sections are in the right areas on the page.
271:
Do all images adhere to Knowledge's copyright regulations? I'm not sure because when I clicked on the picture it states that it is believed to belong to the publisher or the cover artist.
302:
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I believe the author did a thorough job finding sources.
265:
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has a nice picture of the books cover. It is colorful and pops out at the viewer
72:
If a reader should find this page, I believe the lead is concise enough for them to understand that Baby Be-Bop is another book developed in the series of adventures.
241:
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find any grammatical spelling errors and paragraphs seem to flow.
80:
The table of contents could be expanded upon however it is enough for the reader to scroll through and get to the important sections.
309:
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The writer did a good job linking words to other articles.
31:
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
118:
Is the content added relevant to the topic? The articles content is relevant to the authors description of the story.
213:
Most of the sources are retrieved recently 2020 an up to date. There are only two dates that are from 2009.
69:
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
295: 169:
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
289:
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
274:
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The image is appealing and colorful
202:
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
17: 268:
Are images well-captioned? The images are well-captioned and bolded appropriately
153:
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
172:
When reading this article I am presented with more facts rather than opinions
205:
The sources reflect what the author is presenting about the books story line
194:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
77:
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
64:
The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by the author.
61:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
148:
The article seems neutral and unbiased about the character and his life.
85:
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
161:
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
121:
Is the content added up-to-date? The content does seem up to date
218:
Check a few links. Do they work? All the links work well
45:
User:Amdoubleu/Baby Be-Bop/Kerrymonique Peer Review
164:The view points are not over or underrepresented. 93:Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? 8: 88:The lead includes the necessary information. 40:Whose work are you reviewing? (Amdoubleu) 7: 261:If your peer added images or media 294:Does the article meet Knowledge's 24: 223:Sources and references evaluation 43:Link to draft you're reviewing: 145:Is the content added neutral? 1: 197:The sources are all reliable 279:Images and media evaluation 179:Tone and balance evaluation 356: 210:Are the sources current? 249:Organization evaluation 312:New Article Evaluation 184:Sources and References 284:For New Articles Only 317:Overall impressions 96:The lead is concise 341:Overall evaluation 322:Guiding questions: 259:Guiding questions: 233:Guiding questions: 189:Guiding questions: 140:Guiding questions: 130:Content evaluation 113:Guiding questions: 56:Guiding questions: 347: 254:Images and Media 135:Tone and Balance 355: 354: 350: 349: 348: 346: 345: 344: 343: 319: 286: 281: 256: 251: 230: 225: 186: 181: 137: 132: 110: 105: 103:Lead evaluation 53: 37: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 353: 351: 342: 339: 338: 337: 333: 329: 318: 315: 314: 313: 310: 307: 303: 300: 285: 282: 280: 277: 276: 275: 272: 269: 266: 255: 252: 250: 247: 246: 245: 242: 239: 229: 226: 224: 221: 220: 219: 216: 215: 214: 208: 207: 206: 200: 199: 198: 185: 182: 180: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 167: 166: 165: 159: 158: 157: 151: 150: 149: 136: 133: 131: 128: 127: 126: 122: 119: 109: 106: 104: 101: 100: 99: 98: 97: 91: 90: 89: 83: 82: 81: 75: 74: 73: 67: 66: 65: 52: 49: 48: 47: 41: 36: 33: 28: 25: 23: 18:User:Amdoubleu 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 352: 340: 334: 330: 326: 325: 324: 323: 316: 311: 308: 304: 301: 297: 293: 292: 291: 290: 283: 278: 273: 270: 267: 264: 263: 262: 260: 253: 248: 243: 240: 237: 236: 235: 234: 227: 222: 217: 212: 211: 209: 204: 203: 201: 196: 195: 193: 192: 191: 190: 183: 178: 171: 170: 168: 163: 162: 160: 155: 154: 152: 147: 146: 144: 143: 142: 141: 134: 129: 123: 120: 117: 116: 115: 114: 107: 102: 95: 94: 92: 87: 86: 84: 79: 78: 76: 71: 70: 68: 63: 62: 60: 59: 58: 57: 50: 46: 42: 39: 38: 34: 32: 26: 19: 321: 320: 306:improvement. 288: 287: 258: 257: 232: 231: 228:Organization 188: 187: 139: 138: 112: 111: 55: 54: 44: 35:General info 30: 299:evaluation. 27:Peer review 296:Notability 328:headings. 332:display. 108:Content 336:great! 125:good! 16:< 51:Lead

Index

User:Amdoubleu
User:Amdoubleu/Baby Be-Bop/Kerrymonique Peer Review
Notability

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.