User:Eddawolfkill/Open-source software/Msowers77 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?

Eddawolfkill

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Eddawolfkill/Open-source software

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Open-source software

Evaluate the drafted changes

As we are just adding to articles instead of writing new one, this will be a smaller peer review.

Lead

I'm not sure a section added to an existing article needs a sentence explaining the section. The way the sentence is written I can't tell if it is trying to introduce the section or it just wants to inform the user about the amount of users in the social media space. The word "cater" should be "catering".

Content

The content is relevant as open source software is used in social media and it seems up to date. There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors through the paragraph. Nothing ties the paragraph together. It is just a string of facts about open source software used in social media. This may be better suited in a bulleted structure with the software name, and then information about it listed.

Tone and balance

Tone and balance is neutral, with no bias.

Sources and reference

The source links to verifiable information and are current for 2024.

Organization

As stated before, the paragraph just seems to be a string of facts and information with no organization and nothing holding it together. There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors throughout.

Images and media

There are no images or media used

Overall impressions

I think this section would be a good inclusion to the open source software page, but not in it's current form. The current article is not about specific open source software, but what open source software is and it's uses. A section on Social Media would be a good inclusion in that aspect, but more about it's uses and how it enables access to people. With the paragraph mostly just listing open source software used in social media it may be a better fit for a List of free and open-source software packages.