User:Ekidd04/Islamic mythology/Stevenn117 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?

Ekidd04

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ekidd04/Islamic mythology - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Islamic mythology - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The added sentence in the lead by my peer adds more context to the overall Islamic mythology, which is good because it avoids confusion. I wonder if adding a link to the text "Islamic Law" would be more helpful for readers. I feel like the lead has a concise paragraph

Content:

For "Types of Islamic Mythology", instead of "Sub Heading 1", it should be "Heading". However, I like the added part of the Types of Islamic Mythology as part of the first headings because it gives more context, while expanding more on mythology. Also, I would put links to Cosmogony and Eschatology, which can be helpful for readers. Overall, I feel that this section belongs, is relevant, and adds more to the article in a concise manner.

I have noticed that in the active article, there was some "clarification needed" marks. In the sandbox draft, my peer has added in text for more clarification in multiple sections, which is a nice and needed touch.

Tone and Balance:

Overall, the article has a neutral tone to it. I did notice that a lot of the word "God" has been replaced by "Allah" in this draft. I wonder if this is a necessary change, since God and Allah are interchangeable, and if they could cause some inconsistency throughout the article. The article does not have any bias or persuasive text.

Sources and References:

The sources are correctly referenced, and the links do work. The sources are peer-reviewed material. It seems that the sources are relevant to the article's content.

Organization:

The text is easy to read, concise, and have little grammar mistakes. I found one grammatical error:

"While in Islam there is no single story of creation, it is made clear the Allah is the one who created the world."

Grammatically, it should be "...that Allah", not "the Allah".

Overall, the sections are clear, and the renaming of the sections are more relevant. It is well-organized.