User:AnonStu10/Kobe Mosque/A-zheng97 Peer Review

General info
AnonStu10
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AnonStu10/Kobe_Mosque?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Kobe Mosque:

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
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, The lead has been updated clearly and reflected and organized. Information was nicely placed amongst the existing information, cited from a reliable source.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, I do think the lead has a strong introductory sentence that starts off the article strong.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

I do think the lead nicely summarizes what is to be expected in the rest of the article without giving too much information.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

I would say there isn’t a whole covered about the Tourism and Outreach part of the article. Could make a reference or add to lead.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think the lead is a good length and nicely organized. But make sure to tap into more of the Tourism and Outreach part of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, information seems to all surround the history and significance of the architecture and its impact but doesn’t touch any opinionated or gray areas the topic could go.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, Sources seem reliable and up to date


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No, not that I could see, what I could tell was new information added. Seem to flow nicely with the existing information.


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

Yes, the Kobe Mosque might be one of the less talked about monuments considering the amount of new information added wasn't as much as the current information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, neutral and informational. No biased or opinionated remarks or personal thoughts on the topic. There are no words like “I think” or “it could” words that hint at different meanings.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, the article, like I said, wasn't too different from the original.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, neutral article that covered the different ranges regarding the mosque. Focusing on the history and impact.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

no.

Sources and References
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, but it seem like there is more sources than the amount of new information provided.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?

Yes, within 10 years


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? 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.)

There is always more information on the internet, google scholar is a great place for more detailed scholarly articles and free pdf downloads.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

I do think the content added makes the article stronger, but some guiding images and more information on tourism and outreach would help elaborate.