User:W1kiw0000t/Tarrana/KateLiszka 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?

Maria

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:W1kiw0000t/Tarrana?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Tarrana

Evaluate the drafted changes

Maria,

Your draft was totally empty, when you were already supposed to have revised it. You haven't even copied over the draft from the website yet. So there's nothing for me to review. Please do the work.

KL

10/25/2024 review

--It seems like what you copied over is just a segment of the original article. Did you only move to the sandbox the sections that you are working on? Or are you going to delete out the sections that you didn't copy?

--It seems like you have a giant content gap. I don't know what the site is archaeologically or when it dates to or how big it is or why it was important or any basic information about the past there. It's all the modern stuff, which should be there, but cannot support the article alone. Why is it an archaeological site?

--"According to Hooper, the excavation of this site spanned about 25 meters east to west and 20 meters north to south, totaling to about 500 meters in all." -- I don't understand why this is under "geography"... Also this is there excavations, but is that the size of the full archaeological site? I'm not sure why this is relevant or how it relates to the whole.

--You should have sections on each of the major parts of the site, even if it's brief. People should know what was once there.

--"he site was first excavated in 1887–88 by Francis Llewellyn Griffith, who rediscovered the temple of Hathor" -- how did he rediscover it if he was the first person there?

--Were the stelae from the temple? We need to know what type of archaeological context they came from.

--The excavation section needs to be fully reorganized. It's mixing excavations with what is there archaeologically. But you need a clean description of the whole site first and then a separate section on excavations.

--