User:Lilybillow/Mandala/Artylearner 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?
Lily Billow

(provide username)

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lilybillow/Mandala?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Mandala

Hi Lily! - It does seem that there is not much about sand mandalas in the Wiki Mandala article besides the religious aspect and a photo, so this information could be a nice contribution.

Sources

- Find some articles or books in Temple library for more reliable and informative sources.

- If you use the same reference twice, here is how to avoid wikipedia adding it a second time: click on "cite", select "Re-use" and choose from the list of your references to site something for the second time.

Organization

--Sentence structure might be revised throughout. For example it can be confusing to end a sentence with a verb, "to make"

- It sounds like you are describing the process. You may want to describe what a sand mandala actually is in a neutral way for example what it looks like, where they can be found, etc. ( you linked to a page where monks created a mandala at a church in Germany. Monks actually go all over to create these. That may be something to note in your paragraph citing references that you find.)

Clarify your information and make it more specific:

-Your first sentence about training is a bit confusing. The video you cited said that even though people start training at age of seven to become monks, they need five years to learn how to make these mandalas. Where did they get their information?

-In your second sentence, you talk about the crushed stones and gems. Your first reference said that gems are no longer used, and crushed marble is used instead. If different sources say different things you may need to clarify that and look up other potential sources from peer-reviewed books or articles for the materials information to be sure it is as accurate as possible.

Neutrality

-"our essence will return to the elements and to not become attached to anything"- You may need to clarify that it is the monks' BELIEF that a person's essence will return to the elements. Wikipedia requires neutrality and to not express opinions.

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)