User:Cononthecob/Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza/SinbadtheTayler Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cononthecob


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cononthecob/Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
 * Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza

Evaluate the drafted changes
I think the sections that you are wanting to add would greatly improve the article. Besides what you are wanting to add, I think there can be more about her life mentioned. If you look at her biography page on Harvard Divinity's website, there is some interesting material about her life and accomplishments: https://hds.harvard.edu/people/elisabeth-schussler-fiorenza. While I do not want to assume that Harvard isn't biased, her biography does not seem to lean one way or another, but rather provides facts about her life and connections to other organizations.

The lead section is quite short. I think you could add a sentence or two about her major works.

The 1st and 5th citations need to be updated. The 1st is to the LA Times but is not accessible by people who do not have subscription. The 5th is nonexistent. If additional sources could be added as well, I think that would improve the quality of the article.

Lead
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - A new lead has not been added to reflect new changes. If this plans to be a section that is worked on, a note could be made in the draft page.

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic?- No new content has been added other than some potential ideas.

Is the content added up-to-date?- No new content has been added yet other than some potential ideas.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- N/A

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article deals with a female theologian, which is an underrepresented group.

Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral? No new content has been added that can be evaluated.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? By choosing to expand on one of her books, you will be expanding a much needed section.

Sources and References
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are no new sources added.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The current sources are not the most diverse. They are mainly academic.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? SBL's website might have some.

Check a few links. Do they work? The links did work except for 1 and 5.

Organization
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is just ideas, not real content.

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? Not at this time.

Images and Media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article includes a photo of the subject.

Are images well-captioned? The image is captioned well.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes it does. After clicking on the image, I was given this message "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification."

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.