User:Zainabmojaddedi/Islam in Ethiopia/Ajhwik Peer Review
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]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Zainabmojaddedi
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
- User:Zainabmojaddedi/sandbox
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
[edit]I don't know if you intend to use the first section as a lead, but it is a good introduction.
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?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content that you've added is relevant and helpful for the main article. I like that you are choosing to expand into new topics that were not addressed by the original article. You could maybe add a little bit of background about the Gojjam region for context.
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
[edit]I think you keep the tone neutral. I think you could maybe include a little more background on the origin of the persecution enacted by polytheist extremists. Was it only because Muslims were monotheists or were there other political factors involved?
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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]It looks like the sources you used are solid and reputable. They also appear to be fairly current.
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
[edit]I think the way that you break down the sections is good. The Background and Demographics section is a strong introduction to the topic. There are a few typos. I think that some of the sentences would also benefit from being broken down a little, especially in cases where you list different historical figures or eras.
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
[edit]I think that you chose well in terms of what type of material to add to this article. Your organization and content is definitely an improvement on the current one. I especially like that you turned Land Rights into its own section. As I mentioned in previous sections, I think mainly that adding a bit of context about certain people/places/events would be helpful. But I also know that Wikipedia articles always include links for other topics that they mention so I am actually not sure how much context you should include if that is going to be part of the final article format.