User:Liagabrielafp/Community development planning/Kayleegmorgan 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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional Resources |
General info
edit- Whose work are you reviewing?
Liagabrielafp
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Liagabrielafp/Community development planning
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Community development planning
Evaluate the drafted changes
editFrom what it looks like, you're adding one sentence to the end of the paragraph, so I don't have a lot of suggestions to add :) If you wanted to go above and beyond it could be worthwhile to add an example of an actual community development project that was successful. Not sure if Wikipedia articles normally do that, but as someone who doesn't have a ton of community development background/knowledge, having an example could help visualize it a little better. You could maybe pull a sentence of two from the Duriappah reading and talk about participatory approaches, but I'm not sure if that's redundant or not.
The lead is being updated by nature of the new sentence being added, and the article being so short anyways. The content added is relevant and adds a more nuanced perspective to the information already there. I like that it adds enough information for readers to continue doing more sophisticated research. I love that you added another source to the article. Previously it only had one source so I think it's important there are multiple in order to keep the information more neutral.