Peer reviewing

To make the task of peer reviewing easier, I updated the spreadsheet showing Wikipedia articles and students working on them. The column labeled "link to your Wikipedia article" takes you to the URL of the live Wikipedia article you are editing or commenting on.  The column labeled "link for commenting" takes you to a Google doc, in which I copy and pasted the content of the original article as of about noon, Nov 4th.   

If you are the team working on an article and have a private version in your sandbox, a team Google doc, or elsewhere, copy  your private version to the "commenting/ Google doc version of the article" so your classmates are commenting on the version of the article you are actually working on. 

If you are peer reviewing an article,  go to the "commenting/ Google doc version of the article"  and add your comments to it.

Note that I have not distinguished work by students from Organizational Communication from work by other Wikipedians in  the commenting version of the article. When you comment on the article, everything is far game!   Below are some things to comment upon.  When you add comments, don't just identify problems, but suggest solutions as well!

  • Broad coverage: Does the article address the main aspects of the topic and does it stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail 
  • Up-to-date: Does the article cite current research or just old stuff?
  • Verifiablity: Is the material included in the article, verifiable, with no original research?
    • Does the article document its claims with in-line citations that link to reliable sources ? Review articles are preferred, published articles from sources with strong editorial control (e.g., scientific  journals or newspapers) are good, and blog posts are not reliable.
    • Citation is especially important for for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, non-obvious, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are likely to be challenged.  It is generally good practice to include an in-line citation for non-obvious claim in the article. Do this at the sentence level and not at the end of a paragraph.
  • Article lead: Does the article lead (the section before the table of contents) summarize the article and give a reader enough information to know if they want to read the whole thing?
  • Neutrality: Does the article represent viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Writing quality: 
    • Is the article well organized, with sections that make sense?
    • Is the prose clear and concise.
    • Are the spelling and grammar correct?
  • Illustration: Is the article visually interesting. Does it include any images? Can you think of pictures, charts or graphics it should include to illustrate points?


Image: