User:Lunabean0204/Elephantine/Starkid25 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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional Resources |
General info
edit- Whose work are you reviewing?
Lunabean0204
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- User:Lunabean0204/Elephantine
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Elephantine
Evaluate the drafted changes
editThe Lead Section
- Missing the lead section in the sandbox, I'm assuming it's okay from the main page
- Would recommend separating the information of the WH status away from the main information of the Island's location and history.
Clarity of Article Structure
- The article is set up in a strange way that doesn't promote readability, would recommend that the information about the Archaeological sites be tied in with the Geography section rather than that of the Ancient Egypt section.
- Jewish presence section needs a lead-in or additional information added so that there is more of a connection to this section to the actual article itself.
Coverage Balance
- The sections could be longer to provide more information to the topic of the article as it feels very incomplete.
- Jewish Presence section feels out of place with no additional information provided in how it connects to the overall article
Content Neutrality
- Overall the language of the article is relatively neutral excluding the Jewish Presence section where the language lacks a sense of neutrality where it feels as if the language is arguing against a disagreement between two groups
Sources
- The article could use additional sources to further provide information about the topic, sections like the Jewish Presence Section or the Geography section only has one source each and would benefit from more.