User:Vshu43/Workweek and weekend/RealShirty 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?

Vshu43

Link to draft you're reviewing: (reviewing existing article bc no draft found)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Workweek and weekend

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead:

The lead is pretty strong. It's a bit lengthy, but so is the article itself, so it's not a bad intro. It does seem to give more attention to traditionally Christian and Jewish reasons for a Sat-Sun weekend than it does to other reasons, so some more evenness there could be useful. Otherwise, I think the lead can remain how it is.

Content:

The "History" section focuses a lot more on Western countries and could use clarification on the history of the workweek and weekends in other regions, such as Asia or Africa. The "Length" section is pretty U.S.-centric in its history. Does length even need its own section, when it's covered more thoroughly and with finer-grain precision in other sections?

As for "Around the world", I really like how the table summarizes all the info. The succeeding paragraphs by contrast are just lengthy and hard to get through. Could the paragraphs be eliminated except for countries with extra notes or important history, or at least have the table's information removed from them to avoid redundancy? (Probably something to bring up on the article's talk page, since it looks like there's a lot of activity there and it'd be good to get other editors' input on a big change like that.) The table probably needs citations though.

There's also a ton of discussion on the talk page, so I'd suggest checking that out for more ideas on what to improve instead of repeating what's already there myself.

Tone:

Tone is good. The article is mostly dealing with factual realities rather than opinions, and it's presented as such.

Sources:

The top of the article requests further citation for the article's content, with which I would agree. Trying to find reliable sources to back up the information provided in the article would be a good way to contribute to it. Beyond that, some sources don't seem like the most reliable. For example, source 47 is from the LA Times, but the source of their data on the workweek would be a more appropriate root source to cite. Sources 37 and 38 also cite news articles; honestly, there are a lot of questionable sources for this article that need auditing. Sources 40 and 80 have links which no longer work. I didn't try all links, so this is just a selection of problems.

Organization:

The article could use some more intuitive sectioning, because almost all the content is under the "Around the world" section. "By weekends other than Saturday to Sunday" could become its own section potentially, instead of being a subsection of "Around the world". (The title of "By weekends..." is also somewhat wordy and could be rephrased for succinctness.)

Media:

There are a couple solid images near the beginning of the article's body, then nothing else. The first image (the map showing which days make up the weekend) would fit better near "By weekends other than Saturday to Sunday" imo. The rest of the "Around the world" section could use images, but I'm not sure off the top of my head what might be appropriate...