User:Maceym25/Winchester Bible/CPotter96 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? (provide username): Maceym25
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Maceym25/Winchester Bible

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

-Was no real separation of content in original page, so there is update in specific Lead highlighting main points but no new content, besides ending sentence.

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

-Gives precise description of what the object is and summary of location and making.

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

-Has content box of headings but no text in Lead to describe what major sections will be covered. Ending sentence does hint towards covering content on importance of how it relates to displaying making of its manuscript type.

• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

-Yes it provides more specific dates and measurements of the manuscript size, as well directly states where the manuscript is currently located.

• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

-Is concise and gives good quick summary about the manuscript.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?

-Yes relevant new information including process of its creation and more details on already stated content.

• Is the content added up-to-date?

-Majority of content seems to come from sources within past few years so up to date.

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

-Morgan leaf section begins with a comma as though the second half of a cut off sentence. Missing text or planned for later date perhaps?

Content evaluation

-Lots of relevant interesting new data added and it is better organized then previously.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?

-Largely neutral and factual text.

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

-No noticeable positions presented that article would be biased towards, or alluded to in writing.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

-Not in my opinion no.

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

-Not that I am aware of no, not noticeable.

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall text sounds very factual and neutral in its presentation well done for an Wikipedia article.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

-The sources seem reliable with websites being largely museum based and one new book source from art historian with leading theory on artists of the manuscript.

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

-Yes.

• Are the sources current?

-Seem current within past few years.

• Check a few links. Do they work?

-Links work but note that the one for "The Grove Encyclopedia of Medieval Art and Architecture". Oxford Reference. The Oxford University Press. 2013. is a csus link so can not click on it and when copied and posted into url for browser leads to a sac state log in screen.

Sources and references evaluation

-Sources seem find just take note of csus link as noted above.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

-Yes information is presented clearly.

• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

- Not the best at noticing grammatical errors but reading through nothing stood out.

• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

-Yes clear headers that accurately break down the sections of information.

Organization evaluation

-Well improved from original article on headings and presents clear concise writing.

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?

Images and media evaluation

-No new images or media added to article.

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?
• 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?

- Yes the article feels more improved by going into more detail on some of the information presented, and is better shown in it's broken up headings.

• What are the strengths of the content added?

- The detail in its creation process seems to be best strength of article, and presented very factually and clearly.

• How can the content added be improved?

- While understandable if not much is know history, section seems to have short sections and not sure if origin and provenance need their own sections. They could possibly be combined to one section? Or have origin section just be leading text for the History header.

Overall evaluation

Overall the article is going in a good direction and doesn't need much for improvement on whats presented so far in my opinion.