User:Envsciencenku/Gomesi/Nepsy23 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?

(Envsciencenku)

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Envsciencenku/Gomesi - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Gomesi - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

Has the lead been updated to include new content added by your peer?

Yes, it has been updated a bit to include more historical information. such as the different stages of the evolution of the garment since the 1960s. as well as the origin of the article of clothing.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic?

Yes.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No. this needs to be added still.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, it is lacking information, such as an overview of the sections.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is too concise. It is only one sentence long. it was too concise in the original too. the lead should also contain an overview of the sections of the article.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

yes, all of the content added is relevant to the topic. the main content added was historical information about the origin of the dress and its modifications over the last few decade.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, all of the sources are within the last twenty years with most being within the last five years. This is not a subject that is likely to undergone rapid change within the next few years that would make the current content irrelevant. They also fixed a line about the origin of the clothing being in the early 1900s when it has now been traced back to 600. They updated the materials section to contain more materials.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I would like to see what scenarios this garment is worn for. there is a short section in the original article. these may have changed since the last time the article has been updated. I'm not sure if my classmate is focusing on that though.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? does it address topics related to historically under repented populations or topics?

I think so. I assume Uganda is an underrepresented population.

Tone and balance

Is the content added neutral?

Yes. This version of the article changes a line in the original that said "the best scholarship" claims something to a more neutral tone.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position?

No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I do not think so.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No

Sources and References

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

From what I can tell the content does reflect the cited sources

Are the sources thorough?

A few of these do not appear to be academic sources and are instead news articles. these are not thorough.

Are the sources current?

Yes. Most of the sources are from 2020 or later. one of them is from 2012. but that is still somewhat recent.

Are there better sources available?

Probably but I don't know of them. I think the ones they are currently using are fine.

Organization

Is the content added well written?

Yes, I feel that it is well written and flows well into the content that was already in the article.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There is a spelling error in the first sentence. it should be "known" not "know". the second sentence should say "it is most commonly used as a costume for women in Buganda and Busoga." the next sentence should be "the traditional male attire is known as the Kanzu." make sure you spell check before posting the final version.

Is the content added well-organized?

It needs to be broken down into sections as they move foward. the lead merges into the history section currently.

overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - ie is the article more complete?

The content added has greatly improved the article's quality. The current article is very sparse and needed some more content. the historical data provided gives a good starting point for more content to be added later. In addition, the original article did not contain references to the various ways in which the Gomsei has been modified over the last few decades.

What are the Strengths of the content added?

The historical section has been greatly improved with more details. It is now longer. In addition, it is more accurate by mentioning the historical origin of the Gomsei.

how can the content added be improved?

I would add more information. The article is still very short. in addition, there is no way to distinguish between the lead and the historical section. The author needs to fix several spelling errors. In addition, there are several words that are missing from sentences such as "the" or "as".