Wikipedia

User:Jackson Dutra/Gender separation in Judaism/Gabrielajorrin Peer Review

< User:Jackson Dutra‎ | Gender separation in Judaism

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

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?

Overall evaluation: Yes I believe the content that will be added by Jackson will make the article better, it dives deeper into what actually Halakha’s culture is without making it confusing and uses precise/neutral language in order to avoid bias. Although it might be a bit too detailed for the intro comment as it dives into Halakha but can be added to the background section!

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jackson_Dutra/Gender_separation_in_Judaism/Gabrielajorrin_Peer_Review&oldid=984205583"