User:Njacobs9/Dura-Europos church/Gracemiskovsky 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?

Noah

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Njacobs9/Dura-Europos_church?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Dura-Europos church

Evaluate the drafted changes

While the existing article has a lot of notes on the measurements and layout of the building, I think your draft goes into depth about why exactly it may have looked the way it did (You say: "The building is notably smaller and sports less modifications than the nearby synagogue that was excavated during the same time period, which can be attributed to the Christian population in Dura-Europos being much smaller and less affluent than the Jewish population at the time of its construction"). This is a consistent theme I see in your draft, which is that you go beyond the surface level facts provided in the original Wikipedia article and tell us why these things are significant, or why they exist in the way that they do. This is also shown in your paragraph about the procession of women and what it represents. (You say: "they were situated along the eastern wall such that they mimicked the procession of someone walking from the courtyard into the baptistry, which emphasized how one would walk into the baptistry and emerge reborn and purified, just as the women would as they walk towards the tomb of Christ"). Your bibliography seems really strong as well! One thing I would work on is expanding your information about the Persian seige, as I am curious to know more, and based on your work, I think you could add some interesting notes on it. I'd also be curious to see if you were planning on adding any additional photos to the article as I think the existing article is pretty information heavy and lacks adequate visual references.