User:Jackson Dutra/Gender separation in Judaism/Gabrielajorrin Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (JacksonDutra)
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User talk:Jackson Dutra/Gender separation in Judaism/Bibliography
Lead
[edit]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?
Lead evaluation: As Jackson is editing the lead sentence, it can be a bit overly detailed as he gets into the second sentence. I think he can add the second sentence to the background portion.
[edit]Content
[edit]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? +
Content evaluation: Overall, the Article is separated well and talks about various topics in which the men and women are separated, gives good insight overall
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]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?+
Tone and balance evaluation: The tone of the article is neutral, the paraphrasing of quotes is done well, and is there to strictly share information and not to hold an opinion
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? +
- 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? +
- Check a few links. Do they work? +
Sources and references evaluation: I clicked all the links, and they work very well, takes me directly to the article it is referencing to most sources are current between 2005-2018... most about 2015.
[edit]Organization
[edit]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?+
Organization evaluation: What I like most about this article is the broken-down subject, makes it easy to read especially when someone is looking for specific information and wants to find it fast!
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]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?
Images and media evaluation: Jackson did not add images to this article and there is only one picture, adding more pictures could make the article better.
[edit]For New Articles Only
[edit]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?
- 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?
New Article Evaluation: Not a new article.
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]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?