User talk:Sangbin1999/sandbox

Solomon's Peer Review of Brandon's Article

Lead

• The topic sentence is a strong starting point. By Wikipedia standards I am confident that with the lead I can understand the subject and its importance and who it is important to. It is concise and if I didn't read the whole article I could still understand the gist of subject.

• The lead also does a good job of concisely prefacing the usage aspect of the subject, if anything I'd suggest prefacing the structure by naming it's circular or something of the sort.

Structure

• The structure is very clear and sensible. It begins with a small introduction to the subject, then the actual physical structure of the subject, and then the usage of the subject.

• As far as I'm concerned I can't reorder any sections to make more sense.

Balance

• I argue the balance of the content presented in this article reflects the importance of each aspect relative to the subject. For example, the structure has two separate chunks of texts, and the structure of the Ifa from size to design is all important to the process

• I also believe that the huge pieces of text regarding to the usage of the Ifa is warranted because the content in the usage section relays ideas of the divine process along with what I believe is the most important part of the subject, the implementation of the divine practice itself.

Neutrality

• I couldn't guess the contributors stance or position after reading the article.

• I see a clear reflection of various aspects of this article, in Wikipedia's words.

Sources

• The sources in this article are university press, JSTOR, academic journals, and these are all credible to my knowledge.