User:Ayub Shahada/Port of Gaza/CSD2020UPRC Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Ayub Shahada
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ayub Shahada/Port of Gaza

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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does include sentences that concisely and clearly describe the article's topic. It describes very well and gives an excellent introduction to the article's content. I liked the addition to the Lead, its make it more complete and explain very well what is the Port of Gaza in general. I would recommend separating this portion of the text into two sentences by adding a period after Israel. "Since 2007, the Gaza port has only been used by fishermen on a small scale due to the sea blockade imposed by Israel, as part of the blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip that has restricted trade and the movement of people." Overall it is pretty good and relevant to the topic.

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?

Content evaluation
Overall the content is well-develop, up-to-day, and relevant, but I consider that it could reorganize the text inside each paragraph. It seems that the content could be present in a more "chronological" order. The content is excellent as it is, but maybe some wording it would be great. For example, these two sentences are well-develop, but I think that does not match quite well together. "The strip had a small airport located at Rafah, which was destroyed in 2001 by Israeli. The port was built by the Palestinian National Authority (PNA)."[1] I think that you can include the last sentence in the Lead and remove it from the "Gaza Strip" section. (Only if not affect the article's content and structure).

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and does not seem to be biased toward a particular position or try to persuade the reader in favor of one point of view.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The source and reference added are reliable. I checked a few sources, and they work great. The references had the content refers to in the article's content. I saw that the editor is updating the previous article's sources. He leaves some notes indicating which are reliable or not; something I consider is excellent.

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?

Organization evaluation
The content added is well-written and easy to read. It could add some comas that are missing. Overall, excluding the recommendation that a gave before, everything is well-organized and clear.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The editor has not added images or media yet. But the current images and media of the article help with the understanding of the topic, are well captioned, adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and laid out in a visually appealing way.

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?

Overall evaluation
The content added improves the overall quality of the article is precise, concise, and well-written, especially the Lead section. The content added itself is excellent, and the only thing that can improve is in the things that I mentioned before (most of the improvements that I recommended is not for the content added, is more for the previous content). So far, the editor has done excellent work; keep going☺.

Note to editor:

I really liked your contribution, keep going, and I wish you success.☺♪

References: