User:SmokeyJoe77/Biblical studies/Kaimcamc 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?

SmokeyJoe77

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SmokeyJoe77/Biblical studies
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Biblical studies

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

A new theory was added to the lead, which shows the changes made in the article.

Content

Overall I think that all the content that is added is relevant and seems to be up to date. The original article is pretty short, so I do like the content and sections that you are going to add. I am a little confused because your draft says you are adding a section titled "the Bible as history" but in the original article there is a "History of the Bible" section. Could those be combined?

Tone and Balance

From what I read in your draft, the tone and balance of the writing is pretty neutral. I feel like this topic has a specific tone when reading about it and I feel that your writing would fit in nicely with the original article.

Sources and References

The sources that you added seemed to be helpful and add good new information to the article. The sources are a good addition, but I would suggest added them to the reference list, so you make sure to not forget to cite your information.

Organization

I think that the organization of your draft and writing works well and would fit in the original article. One thing I am not sure of is where you would be adding the new sections. Knowing where the new sections would go would help understand, how good of an addition they would be to the article.

Overall Impression Overall, I think that you have a lot of great additions to the original article. I do like the additions you put into the lead, it helps address what you added to the article. I would suggest really thinking about where to put the new sections so that they don't disrupt flow in the article, but add good information to the article. I also liked the addition to the section of biblical criticism, I feel like it matches the flow of that section and adds good information. My last suggestion would be to make sure you cite your sources so that they end up in the actual references section.