User:GardenMoth25/Knowledge organization system/Obito3456 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?

GardenMoth25

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:GardenMoth25/Knowledge organization system

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

Knowledge organization system

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead section keeps most of the original content, which is good, but it could benefit from a small update. It defines what a KOS is, but it should give a brief preview of the topics that the article will cover for example, types of KOS, relevant terminology, and issues like bias and obsolescence etc. That would help the readers with a clear overview of what to expect.

Content

The content added is up to date and relevant. It shows how KOS are used across different fields, not just in library science, and includes important topics like bias and obsolescence.

Tone and Balance

The tone of the added content is neutral. It presents different viewpoints clearly, especially in sections that talk about criticism or debates, like bias in KOS or their possible obsolescence. Overall, it maintains a balanced and objective tone throughout.

Sources and References

The sources used are reliable and mostly peer-reviewed, coming from respected journals and institutions. While some articles are older published in 2000, 2004 and 2006 they still provide useful background and context. Overall, the references cover a good range of perspectives, support the content well, and help make the article feel well-researched and up to date.

Organization

The article is put together in a way that’s easy to follow, starting with what KOS are and then moving into different types and some of the bigger conversations around them, like terminology and bias.

• One thing that could make it even stronger is if the part about Mazzocchi’s three issues coverage, terminology, and comparison was a bit more balanced. Right now, only terminology is explained, so adding a quick explanation of coverage and comparison would help round it out and give readers a better idea of the full picture.

• Also, the note about maybe turning some of the sections into bulleted lists seems like a great idea, it would definitely help make things easier to scan, especially for people just skimming the article.

Images and Media

Images haven’t been added yet, but including one could really help. A visual like a classification chart, a semantic network, or a simple diagram showing how KOS works would make the topic easier to understand. Just make sure any added image follows Wikipedia’s copyright rules and has a clear caption.

Overall Impressions

Overall, the article is a lot more informative and well-rounded with the new content. It explains the topic clearly, gives good examples, and brings up important points like bias. The tone feels balanced, the sources are strong, and the structure makes sense. There are just a couple of areas that could use a little more like adding a quick note about Mazzocchi’s other two points (coverage and comparison), and maybe including a simple image to help visualize the topic. But all in all, the changes really help improve the article and make it feel much more complete.