User:Acaebow1/Dogs in religion/Ssatwik Peer Review

General info
(Acaebow1)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Acaebow1/Dogs in religion
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Dogs in religion

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * old:
 * Go beyond a surface-level exploration of animal symbolism in religious traditions. Offer specific examples, stories, and anecdotes from various faiths to illustrate the diversity and depth of symbolism associated with animals.
 * Ensure that the article is well-supported with scholarly references and citations. Use peer-reviewed articles, books, and reputable academic sources to strengthen the credibility of the content.
 * Provide a more detailed overview of Lisa Kemmerer's book, including its publication date, the author's background, and the methodology used in the research. Mention any awards or recognitions the book has received.
 * Discuss how the role of dogs in religious contexts has evolved in the modern era. Are there any ongoing practices or traditions related to dogs in religion? Explore their contemporary relevance.
 * Provide historical context for the role of dogs in different religious traditions, including how perceptions and symbolism may have evolved over time.
 * Balance the text with relevant images, diagrams, or multimedia content that helps illustrate key points and engages readers visually. Ensure that all media files are appropriately licensed and sourced.

new:

Lead[edit]
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? yes, it's concise

Content[edit]
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
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? yes Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes

Make the paragraph more engaging by including anecdotes, specific examples, or vivid descriptions. These can help the reader connect emotionally with the content.

Tone and Balance[edit]
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

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?yes Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * 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.) no
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

'' Praise: The draft uses excellent sources which are of high quality, credible, and reliable. the draft is extremely well organized in terms of content and additions making it extremely easy to read with no confusion on what something means ''

Organization[edit]
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? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media[edit]
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

For New Articles Only[edit]
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? 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

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved? no need to.