313:
article to be further updated in the future and continuously improved. If more information can be found regarding the subjects of each subheading, I would recommend adding more content to those section to help the article flow better from one (sub)topic to the next. I think that would help the overall cohesion of the article. Because the
Shellhouse has undergone many changes in the use and structure, having this article reflect those changes would be beneficial. This could be done with the addition of a couple more pictures, and proper captions.
82:
One thing I immediately noticed about the Lead is that is does a great job of reflecting the organization of the whole article. As a reader, it gave me a glimpse of what to expect in the article without revealing too much. Additionally, I thought the pieces of information that you chose to include in
312:
I think the this article has a lot of strengths, starting with the Lead. With that being the first thing that users see, it's important to have a strong introduction. I appreciated the fact that the article covers the history of the
Shellhouse up to future plans that are set for 2021. It sets up the
178:
The information in the article appears to be backed up by reliable sources. I noticed that a couple links led to the UW website or an affiliated page, which may not be considered a neutral party. However, given what is included in the article, it doesn't seem like the use of such sources influenced
279:
In terms of
Notability, I am not sure if I would consider this topic as meeting the Knowledge guidelines. The list of sources also include a couple links to the UW website, which I don't consider independent of the subject. The sources provided, however, have relevant and accurate information so I
242:
The article does include one image of the
Shellhouse, which I found useful, but I would recommend a caption. If it's possible to find pictures of the Shellhouse in its various stages (that adhere to Knowledge's copyright regulations) throughout the years, I think that would be a great addition.
208:
The article is concise and easy to read. Based on what is presented in the Lead, the organization of the rest of the article flows well. I felt like some sections ended rather abruptly, but they may be because no other information was pertinent to the topic. As a reader, however, it made certain
145:
Most of the information provided in the article are facts and/or events. Given this, the overall tone of the article is pretty neutral. The article reports the changes and happenings of the
Shellhouse in a very matter-of-fact manner, which does not leave room for bias or opinions.
112:
Each section of the article appears to contain relevant content that is also up-to-date. I am unfamiliar with the history of the ASUW Shellhouse, so I'm not sure if anything is missing, but the all current information seem to belong in the article.
280:
consider them to be useful for the article. Lastly, the article does in fact follow the patterns of similar articles, and it contains well-thought out section headings, subheadings, etc.
267:
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?
283:
This article does link to other articles multiple times through the text, so that will definitely help with making it more discoverable.
44:
17:
31:
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
199:
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
264:
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
261:
requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
64:
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
297:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
258:
136:
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
252:
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
163:
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
193:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
130:
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
160:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
67:
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
224:
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
61:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
70:
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
270:
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
133:
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
103:
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
196:
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
230:
Do all images adhere to
Knowledge's copyright regulations?
83:
the Lead were very thoughtful and carefully selected.
233:
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
73:Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
8:
300:What are the strengths of the content added?
97:Is the content added relevant to the topic?
40:Whose work are you reviewing? Annikahille
209:parts of the article seem disconnected.
303:How can the content added be improved?
7:
220:If your peer added images or media
257:Does the article meet Knowledge's
24:
174:Sources and references evaluation
45:User:Annikahille/ASUW Shell House
18:User:Annikahille/ASUW Shell House
169:Check a few links. Do they work?
100:Is the content added up-to-date?
43:Link to draft you're reviewing:
179:the neutrality of the content.
1:
127:Is the content added neutral?
238:Images and media evaluation
141:Tone and balance evaluation
327:
227:Are images well-captioned?
166:Are the sources current?
204:Organization evaluation
275:New Article Evaluation
150:Sources and References
247:For New Articles Only
287:Overall impressions
308:Overall evaluation
292:Guiding questions:
218:Guiding questions:
188:Guiding questions:
155:Guiding questions:
122:Guiding questions:
108:Content evaluation
92:Guiding questions:
56:Guiding questions:
318:
213:Images and Media
117:Tone and Balance
326:
325:
321:
320:
319:
317:
316:
315:
310:
289:
277:
249:
240:
215:
206:
185:
176:
152:
143:
119:
110:
89:
80:
78:Lead evaluation
53:
37:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
324:
322:
309:
306:
305:
304:
301:
298:
288:
285:
276:
273:
272:
271:
268:
265:
262:
248:
245:
239:
236:
235:
234:
231:
228:
225:
214:
211:
205:
202:
201:
200:
197:
194:
184:
181:
175:
172:
171:
170:
167:
164:
161:
151:
148:
142:
139:
138:
137:
134:
131:
128:
118:
115:
109:
106:
105:
104:
101:
98:
88:
85:
79:
76:
75:
74:
71:
68:
65:
62:
52:
49:
48:
47:
41:
36:
33:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
323:
314:
307:
302:
299:
296:
295:
294:
293:
286:
284:
281:
274:
269:
266:
263:
260:
256:
255:
254:
253:
246:
244:
237:
232:
229:
226:
223:
222:
221:
219:
212:
210:
203:
198:
195:
192:
191:
190:
189:
182:
180:
173:
168:
165:
162:
159:
158:
157:
156:
149:
147:
140:
135:
132:
129:
126:
125:
124:
123:
116:
114:
107:
102:
99:
96:
95:
94:
93:
86:
84:
77:
72:
69:
66:
63:
60:
59:
58:
57:
50:
46:
42:
39:
38:
34:
32:
26:
19:
311:
291:
290:
282:
278:
251:
250:
241:
217:
216:
207:
187:
186:
183:Organization
177:
154:
153:
144:
121:
120:
111:
91:
90:
81:
55:
54:
35:General info
30:
27:Peer review
259:Notability
87:Content
16:<
51:Lead
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.