User:Greenleaf22/Ost und West/User12992239 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?

Greenleaf22

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greenleaf22/Ost_und_West?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Ost und West

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead - The lead has been updated to reflect new information and provides more information about the subject. I would still include the information as to when it operated from in the lead. I think that the lead accurately sets up the article and includes the two authors who are later discussed in the article.

Guiding Questions - I am unsure wether the edits made to the history section are meant to be an addition to the current history section of the article or wether they are a revision to the history section. I think that if it is a revision of the history section it is much more detailed than the current edition and provides me as a reader with more information. The sources used are more modern one of which is within the last 10 years where one is before 2000 but does appear to have relevant information that isn't affected by when it was published. I think that potentially adding information about the issue that is the divide between European jews could be relevant as it is mentioned in the lead and not really discussed in the article. I do think that there is definitely more information that could be added to the page as there is much more information on the German article linked below. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ost_und_West_(1901%E2%80%931923) The information does represent the historically underrepresented topic though and does provide a general sense of the topic but could be improved.

The content is neutral and does not express a viewpoint, it informs the reader as necessary. The information expresses a widely accepted viewpoint of Western and Eastern European ideologies and does not attempt to convince the reader of a certain idea.

Sources - The information cited regarding source 2 in the article is accurate however I think that more could be drawn from the source to be used in the article. The information cited regarding source 1 is accurate but much like source 2 I think that more information can be used to better inform readers about the subject. I also think that there is more information available to use regarding Ost und West that is cited in the sources already used. I also think that "This geographical change resulted in a clashing of Western and Eastern Jewish identities. Eastern Jews, known as the Ostjuden, faced widespread xenophobia in Germany." should be backed up by a reliable source. The links provided work however I do not have access to the full article for source 2. I think that there should be more sources used and that would also contribute to fixing the concern that there is more information available on the subject. Overall I think this lacks a diverse array of sources.

Content -

I found it easy to read the added information. My suggestions are as follows,

In the second sentence, it would be clearer to say "Eastern European Jews" instead of just "Eastern Jews."
In the third sentence, "clashing" might not be the most precise word to use. It might be better to say "conflict" or "tension."
In the fourth sentence, it would be more accurate to say that Ost und West was founded in 1901 in Vienna, Austria (not Berlin, Germany). Also, "Ukrainian" should be capitalized.
In the seventh sentence, it might be clearer to say "their political affiliations" instead of "their political ideologies."
In the last sentence, "avant-garde Jewish art" could be replaced with a more specific description to give readers a better idea of what kinds of art were featured in the magazine.

Impressions - I think that the provided edits have improved the article but there is still work to be done to provide more information about the subject. The article is getting near completion but lacks key information about ideas that were expressed in the newspaper information about historical context and potentially impacts of the newspaper. A very general way to improve the added content would be to dig deeper into the sources to find more information.