Kopfar

Kopfar, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kopfar! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Kopfar, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Mcastil5

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Kopfar Link to draft you're reviewing:Lateran Obelisk Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Are the sources current? Yes. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No media added. 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 Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article has a little more information to offer now. What are the strengths of the content added? It goes much more in depth on the obelisk. It is written with proper grammar is easy to read, and sounds formal. How can the content added be improved? There could be more added Overall evaluation The information added is good, but I felt there could have been more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcastil5 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)