User:At00naSammich/History of the location of the soul/Spooky31 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? At00naSammich
• Link to draft you're reviewing: History of the location of the soul

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There are some sections in the article that are not represented in the lead.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All information in the lead is in the article as well.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise and could probably use expansion.

Lead evaluation

The lead is good but needs to be expanded to include more of the article's major sections.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date? All content is up-to-date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are some major sections that do not have very much information in them and could use expansion or just to be added into a bigger section.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation

Content needs to be more fleshed out and more should be added.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Some of the philosophers viewpoints are underrepresented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation

Good neutral tone, content is needed in some sections.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Good academic sources by a wide range of authors.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

Very organized with many major sections that are short and easy to read.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are two images that do enhance the understanding.
• Are images well-captioned? The images are well-captioned.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They could be better laid out.

Images and media evaluation

I would like there to be more images to enhance the article. The images also could be in a better layout as well.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are many sources but the sources list could be more extensive.
• 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? It follows the patterns of other articles very well.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? There is not much content added but it does improve the overall quality of the article.
• What are the strengths of the content added? It adds a new perspective from da Vinci.
• How can the content added be improved? It can definitely be longer and add more to other sections of the article.

Overall evaluation

The article could use more extensive writing in some sections, with more sources and images added to enhance the article. I believe this user is not yet done with the article so this is a good start.