User:Thatguyfromthe6/Origin-of-death myth/Bageerah20 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?

Thatguyfromthe6

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Thatguyfromthe6/Origin-of-death myth
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Origin-of-death myth

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

There is no new content added. The lead includes an introductory sentence that states it is a theme in many origins. It doesn’t describe what the origin of death is but later on in the lead it does. The lead states that the origin of death myths can be found in different regions. It doesn’t state what regions will be covered in the article. All the information present in the lead is discussed in the article. The lead is very concise and to the point.

Content

No content was added but everything in the article is relevant. There was no content added but looking at the article, the sources are older but they contain the accepted retellings of the myths. When originally reading the article, I thought it needed a lot more information. There are many different regions in the world and all of them have their own origin–of–death myth. Also, the regions listed include smaller regions within it. I looked at the talk page and saw that they didn’t want to have that many examples because it would be similar to the creation myths. I personally still feel like it could use a few more regions, Creation myths include a little bit more to them than origin-of-death myths. These myths will focus on the end of life. I don’t believe the article deals with any of the equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

The content seems very neutral. It just appears to be giving information. There are not any biased claims. I believe that there is a good amount of other underrepresented regions but of the ones in the article, I think Christianity is underrepresented. There is only one sentence about death in the bible. I feel like overall some of the topics should have a little bit more information. North America was very well covered. I don’t believe the content tries to persuade or form an opinion.

Sources and References

There is no new content added. In the article, there is only one source under references, but there is a notes section that includes a lot of sources. The article cites its sources with the notes section. All the information is backed up with a source I checked some of the sources and they do line up with the information given. The sources are very thorough. They include very in-depth information about the regional myths listed. The sources themselves are older, but the information is up to date. The sources given in the article are all from peer-reviewed articles or published books. In the bibliography, all the articles appear to be peer-reviewed as well. In the bibliography, all the links worked. In the article, most of the links worked. Under further reading, that link would not open.

Organization

The content was a little difficult to read. The sentences ran on and included multiple parts in a single sentence. The content has a few grammatical errors. Just a couple of commas that need to be added. The content is broken down by region which I do this is the best way to separate it. I am a little confused why notes and references are separated. I think they should all be placed under references because the article uses content from the sources in the notes section.

Images and media

The article does already include three images that correlate to the myths discussed. I think an additional picture should be added up top near the lead. The pictures are captioned well. They also adhere to copyright regulations. The images are laid out near the region they correlate with. I think the pictures would look more appealing if they varied in size.