Rights that the user has (user_rights) | [
0 => 'createaccount',
1 => 'read',
2 => 'edit',
3 => 'createtalk',
4 => 'writeapi',
5 => 'viewmywatchlist',
6 => 'editmywatchlist',
7 => 'viewmyprivateinfo',
8 => 'editmyprivateinfo',
9 => 'editmyoptions',
10 => 'abusefilter-log-detail',
11 => 'urlshortener-create-url',
12 => 'centralauth-merge',
13 => 'abusefilter-view',
14 => 'abusefilter-log',
15 => 'vipsscaler-test',
16 => 'collectionsaveasuserpage',
17 => 'reupload-own',
18 => 'move-rootuserpages',
19 => 'createpage',
20 => 'minoredit',
21 => 'editmyusercss',
22 => 'editmyuserjson',
23 => 'editmyuserjs',
24 => 'purge',
25 => 'sendemail',
26 => 'applychangetags',
27 => 'spamblacklistlog',
28 => 'mwoauthmanagemygrants',
29 => 'reupload',
30 => 'upload',
31 => 'move',
32 => 'collectionsaveascommunitypage',
33 => 'autoconfirmed',
34 => 'editsemiprotected',
35 => 'skipcaptcha',
36 => 'transcode-reset',
37 => 'createpagemainns',
38 => 'movestable',
39 => 'autoreview'
] |
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext) | '== 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? Eirbouh
* Link to draft you're reviewing: [[Khirbat Faynan]]
=== 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? no
* Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no, the lead is concise.
==== Lead evaluation ====
=== 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? no
==== Content evaluation ====
=== 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 ====
=== 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
* Are the sources current? yes
* Check a few links. Do they work? yes
==== Sources and references evaluation ====
=== 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? yes
* Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, I especially liked how you organized the site article by time periods and you could read the history as it passed in series.
==== Organization evaluation ====
=== Images and Media ===
'''Guiding questions:''' If your peer added images or media
* Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no media yet
* Are images well-captioned? no media yet
* Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no media yet
* Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no media yet
==== Images and media evaluation ====
=== 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 [[Wikipedia:Notability|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? yes
* 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. lots of effective links
==== New Article Evaluation ====
=== Overall impressions ===
'''Guiding questions:'''
* Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? the article was very good and balanced being thorough with being concise
* What are the strengths of the content added? It was very easy to follow and navigate the page.
* How can the content added be improved? adding images would improve the page.
==== Overall evaluation ====
[[Category:Wikipedia Student Program]]' |
Lines added in edit (added_lines) | [
0 => '== Peer review ==',
1 => '',
2 => 'This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.',
3 => '',
4 => '=== General info ===',
5 => '',
6 => '* Whose work are you reviewing? Eirbouh',
7 => '* Link to draft you're reviewing: [[Khirbat Faynan]]',
8 => '',
9 => '=== Lead ===',
10 => '',
11 => ''''Guiding questions:'''',
12 => '',
13 => '* Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes',
14 => '* Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes',
15 => '* Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes',
16 => '* Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no ',
17 => '* Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no, the lead is concise. ',
18 => '',
19 => '==== Lead evaluation ====',
20 => '',
21 => '=== Content ===',
22 => '',
23 => ''''Guiding questions:'''',
24 => '',
25 => '* Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes',
26 => '* Is the content added up-to-date? yes ',
27 => '* Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no ',
28 => '',
29 => '==== Content evaluation ====',
30 => '',
31 => '=== Tone and Balance ===',
32 => '',
33 => ''''Guiding questions:'''',
34 => '',
35 => '* Is the content added neutral? yes',
36 => '* Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no ',
37 => '* Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no',
38 => '* Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no',
39 => '',
40 => '==== Tone and balance evaluation ====',
41 => '',
42 => '=== Sources and References ===',
43 => '',
44 => ''''Guiding questions:'''',
45 => '',
46 => '* Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes',
47 => '* Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes',
48 => '* Are the sources current? yes',
49 => '* Check a few links. Do they work? yes',
50 => '',
51 => '==== Sources and references evaluation ====',
52 => '',
53 => '=== Organization ===',
54 => '',
55 => ''''Guiding questions:'''',
56 => '',
57 => '* Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes',
58 => '* Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? yes',
59 => '* Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, I especially liked how you organized the site article by time periods and you could read the history as it passed in series. ',
60 => '',
61 => '==== Organization evaluation ====',
62 => '',
63 => '=== Images and Media ===',
64 => '',
65 => ''''Guiding questions:''' If your peer added images or media',
66 => '',
67 => '* Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no media yet ',
68 => '* Are images well-captioned? no media yet',
69 => '* Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no media yet',
70 => '* Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no media yet ',
71 => '',
72 => '==== Images and media evaluation ====',
73 => '',
74 => '=== For New Articles Only ===',
75 => '',
76 => ''''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.'''',
77 => '',
78 => '* Does the article meet Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Notability|Notability]] requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? yes. ',
79 => '* How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes ',
80 => '* 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',
81 => '* Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes. lots of effective links ',
82 => '',
83 => '==== New Article Evaluation ====',
84 => '',
85 => '=== Overall impressions ===',
86 => '',
87 => ''''Guiding questions:'''',
88 => '',
89 => '* Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? the article was very good and balanced being thorough with being concise ',
90 => '* What are the strengths of the content added? It was very easy to follow and navigate the page. ',
91 => '* How can the content added be improved? adding images would improve the page. ',
92 => '',
93 => '==== Overall evaluation ==== ',
94 => '',
95 => '[[Category:Wikipedia Student Program]]'
] |
