User:Lunarmoon13/Buddhism and Eastern religions/Ashleeyy 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?

Lunarmoon13

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lunarmoon13/Buddhism and Eastern religions
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

I like the introduction of the original as I think it does suffice, but I'm not too sure about leaving in "Bon." I think it could be excluded and replaced by another topic that IS mentioned more throughly in the article's body.
You could also think about adding at least one more sentence in the intro to wrap the entirety of your article up, it seems to be missing the main points in the beginning, it is very concise.

Content

So far the content is pretty good, I like your additions and edits on the Taoism section.
The only thing I would change would be to take out "Early Buddhism was originally not clearly defined by Taoism." I feel like it might be filler and could be easily overseen.

Tone and Balance

Tone is neutral and balanced so far, I think you'll do well with continuing to edit consistently.
I think all viewpoints are neutral and equally presented.

Sources and References

Sources are reliable and information is backed up in current edits.

Sources and references are good, but I think you would be able to find more through the library data base, more full articles.
The sources are current but there could be more of a variety.

Organization

The content edited is clear, concise, and easy to follow.

(Section: Lead Edit)

- "Buddhism relies on the continual ~~analyzation~~ analysis of the self, rather than being defined by a ritualistic system..."

- "The intersections of Buddhism with other Eastern religions, such as Taoism, Shinto, Hinduism, and Bon illustrates the interconnected ideologies that interplay along the path of enlightenment "

(Section: Taoism Edit)

- "Historically, both Taoism and Buddhism were in competition for the domineering influence of the Indian subcontinent."

- "There is an ideological crossover found between Buddhist and Taoist systems of influence."

Images and Media

Consider adding a couple pieces of imagery apart from the ones already found in the original article.

Overall Impressions

Overall I think so far, the editing is on the right track, but more research could be done.
Would definitely think about adding more of a variety of sources to take away from, rather than just mostly abstracts from books.
The info added is well written and fits well.