User:Clarkwilson1/Codex 1962: A Trilogy/Emaaelrayah Peer Review

Peer review

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

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? User:Clarkwilson1, User:Aumaru
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Clarkwilson1/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• 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? Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes (Sort of -- see evaluation below)
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation

This was a very well-written lead. It covers all of the information I would expect in a book article. I noticed that there is a mention of the themes ("...themes of nationalism, social injustice, and the Jewish resettlement"). It's mentioned again in the "background", which is perfect, but I also think these themes should be discussed in the context of the plot. I assume elaboration on this would go in the "Analysis" section, which is not yet written. My only other recommendation is that you add an image of the book cover, if possible.

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? Yes

Content evaluation

Overall, the content is good. However, there are a few issues. The first thing I noticed was how much bigger the Part II section was than the Part I. I understand that section was probably longer, but I think it could be a bit more concise. Not every detail has to be included. Another concern is the quote in the "Background" section. Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that quotations should be kept to a very minimum. You do not need the block of text in the middle of that section; it can easily be summarized in one or two sentences. I would also love to see a bit more on the translator, if possible, since this article is about the English version of the text. Can you find any sources about the translating process of this book?

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

There is not really a "side" to take here. Tone is professional and neutral. Great job!

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 -- sort of. See evaluation.
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Good number of sources, all reliable. However, you could use some variety. Almost every source is a review. Try to see if you can fit in some more objective sources (maybe something about the historical context???) or better yet, more interviews/direct quotes from the author or translator.

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

Not much to say here. Well-written and well-organized.

Images and Media -- NOT Applicable

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 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? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? List is satisfactory.
• 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? Yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation

Good job picking a notable topic. I compared your article to other similar book articles, and you have covered all of the same topics. Awesome job linking to other Wikipedia articles!

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Well-organized; includes all of the minimum sections; lots of sources/references
• How can the content added be improved?
  • FINISH IT! Add to the plot, characters, and analysis section.
  • Try to cut down the second part of the plot summary. It is very long in comparison to the first part.

Overall evaluation

Awesome first article! Finish it, trim some of the content, and add an image, and it will be perfect.