User:Iitzelrod/Parecclesion/JZilch 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?

Itzel Rodriguez

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Iitzelrod/Parecclesion
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Parecclesion

Evaluate the drafted changes

For the lead it has been updated and provides further information on parecclesions. The introductory sentence does clearly describe what the topic of the article is, however I think the “to start off, what is parecclesion?” part may be excess that can be taken away. The lead does bring up major section points, like the “Chora” and “Pammakaristos Church”. However, I think “ceremonial and funerary purposes” could be elaborated on more and maybe possibly be a section of the article. The lead is concise and does not overly detail anything.

When it comes to content, the “Byzantine Art” section is relevant to the article’s topic, but I feel like it needs to be tied more into the topic rather than seeming like general information about art. “How does Byzantine art become incorporated into parecclesions?” could be a talking point in this section to tie in a bit better. The content that has been added does seem up to date and provides current understandings of the topic. I do think that the article could benefit from having more information explaining architectural aspects of parecclesions, as well as the ceremonies held in them. There are not any wikipedia equity gaps or underrepresented populations or topics in the article.

The tone and balance of the article is neutral with no biased opinions. The article doesn’t contain any material that is heavily biased to a particular position. I think the viewpoint of the purpose of a parecclesion is underrepresented and could be expanded on. The article does a great job at staying neutral and factual, which doesn’t sway the readers position on the topic.

The sources and references utilized for the article come from reliable secondary sources. The sources used also properly relate to the topic and aspects of the topic. The content of the article does a great job of reflecting the source. The sources are mostly current with some being slightly older. The authors of the sources vary in diversity. While i think the sources are good and reliable, I also found one that seems to bring some information of a parecclesion example that is not evident in the article (link provided at the end). All the links in the reference section do work properly.

The content of the article is written well and concise, something that might be beneficial is linking things like “ frescoes” to other wikipedia articles so if readers aren’t sure what that is they can go to that link and learn more. The content has no grammatical errors that I've noticed. The pre-existing information has been edited as well, such as the caption of the image. The image does enhance the understanding of the topic while adhering to the regulations of wikipedia’s copyright. The organization of the article is good, I see that there is intention to add more with the “Pammakaristos Parecclesion” section and hopefully more onwards like the example i found, the ceremonial and funerary purpose, and architecture.

Overall, the content added has improved the article from its previous state. The strong aspects of the article are the examples, which give insight to pareclessions more. The added content can be improved by the inclusion of more examples, and more explanations on architecture and utilizations of the space, if possible.

Link to the example i found: https://mappingeasterneurope.princeton.edu/item/the-transfiguration-fresco-at-zrze-monastery.html