User:SmokeyJoe77/Biblical studies/Paisley.mederios Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

SmokeyJoe77

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SmokeyJoe77/Biblical_studies?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Biblical studies

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.)

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?
  • The Lead isn't included in the draft, however the Lead in the original page should be titled.
• 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?
  • Yes, the added sections "the Bible as history, Biblical theology, Original Languages, Biblical criticism and Biblical Exegenesis, all pertain to the topic of Biblical Studies.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Based on the dates of the new references, the added content seems up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No all the topics added and content seems to fit the topic well
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • This article doesn't pertain to any of Wikipedia's equity gaps or historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes it all appears to be neutral
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No none of the claims are heavily biased
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No viewpoints seem overrepresented or underrepresented
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No the content is neutral.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes the sources are all peer reviewed
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
  • Yes he did a good job of summarizing what each article said as well as putting it in his own words.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes they all dive deeply into biblical studies
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, the oldest is 2000.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes there are numerous different authors, some which are marginalized
• 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.)
  • Not that I could find
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes all the links I clicked on worked

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes it is concise, clear, and easily interpretable
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Could have more consistency in capitalization - specifically the added titles.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes it flows well so far

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • No images are included but the original has a few
• Are images well-captioned?
  • There are none
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes he plans to add numerous sections that will really benefit the article.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The strengths of the added articles are that they are studies that allow a deeper dive into more specific topics.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Show a little more intention within your writing. You're on a great first step and have a lot of information to work with.