User:Jackson Dutra/Gender separation in Judaism/Gabrielajorrin Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review[edit]

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit]

Lead[edit]

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?

Lead evaluation: As Jackson is editing the lead sentence, it can be a bit overly detailed as he gets into the second sentence. I think he can add the second sentence to the background portion.[edit]

Content[edit]

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? +

Content evaluation: Overall, the Article is separated well and talks about various topics in which the men and women are separated, gives good insight overall[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

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?+

Tone and balance evaluation: The tone of the article is neutral, the paraphrasing of quotes is done well, and is there to strictly share information and not to hold an opinion[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? +
  • 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? +
  • Check a few links. Do they work? +

Sources and references evaluation: I clicked all the links, and they work very well, takes me directly to the article it is referencing to most sources are current between 2005-2018... most about 2015.[edit]

Organization[edit]

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?+

Organization evaluation: What I like most about this article is the broken-down subject, makes it easy to read especially when someone is looking for specific information and wants to find it fast![edit]

Images and Media[edit]

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?

Images and media evaluation: Jackson did not add images to this article and there is only one picture, adding more pictures could make the article better.[edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation: Not a new article.[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

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?

Overall evaluation: Yes I believe the content that will be added by Jackson will make the article better, it dives deeper into what actually Halakha’s culture is without making it confusing and uses precise/neutral language in order to avoid bias. Although it might be a bit too detailed for the intro comment as it dives into Halakha but can be added to the background section![edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jackson_Dutra/Gender_separation_in_Judaism/Gabrielajorrin_Peer_Review&oldid=984205583"