User:Envsciencenku/Gomesi/Nepsy23 Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Envsciencenku/Gomesi - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gomesi - Wikipedia

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

Yes, it has been updated a bit to include more historical information. such as the different stages of the evolution of the garment since the 1960s. as well as the origin of the article of clothing. Yes. No. this needs to be added still. No, it is lacking information, such as an overview of the sections.
 * Has the lead been updated to include new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles 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?

The lead is too concise. It is only one sentence long. it was too concise in the original too. the lead should also contain an overview of the sections of the article.

Content

yes, all of the content added is relevant to the topic. the main content added was historical information about the origin of the dress and its modifications over the last few decade. Yes, all of the sources are within the last twenty years with most being within the last five years. This is not a subject that is likely to undergone rapid change within the next few years that would make the current content irrelevant. They also fixed a line about the origin of the clothing being in the early 1900s when it has now been traced back to 600. They updated the materials section to contain more materials. I would like to see what scenarios this garment is worn for. there is a short section in the original article. these may have changed since the last time the article has been updated. I'm not sure if my classmate is focusing on that though. I think so. I assume Uganda is an underrepresented population.
 * 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 under repented populations or topics?

Tone and balance

Yes. This version of the article changes a line in the original that said "the best scholarship" claims something to a more neutral tone. No I do not think so. No
 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased towards 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

From what I can tell the content does reflect the cited sources A few of these do not appear to be academic sources and are instead news articles. these are not thorough. Yes. Most of the sources are from 2020 or later. one of them is from 2012. but that is still somewhat recent. Probably but I don't know of them. I think the ones they are currently using are fine.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?
 * Are the sources thorough?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are there better sources available?

Organization


 * Is the content added well written?

Yes, I feel that it is well written and flows well into the content that was already in the article.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There is a spelling error in the first sentence. it should be "known" not "know". the second sentence should say "it is most commonly used as a costume for women in Buganda and Busoga." the next sentence should be "the traditional male attire is known as the Kanzu." make sure you spell check before posting the final version.


 * Is the content added well-organized?

It needs to be broken down into sections as they move foward. the lead merges into the history section currently.

overall impressions

The content added has greatly improved the article's quality. The current article is very sparse and needed some more content. the historical data provided gives a good starting point for more content to be added later. In addition, the original article did not contain references to the various ways in which the Gomsei has been modified over the last few decades. The historical section has been greatly improved with more details. It is now longer. In addition, it is more accurate by mentioning the historical origin of the Gomsei. I would add more information. The article is still very short. in addition, there is no way to distinguish between the lead and the historical section. The author needs to fix several spelling errors. In addition, there are several words that are missing from sentences such as "the" or "as".
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - ie is the article more complete?
 * What are the Strengths of the content added?
 * how can the content added be improved?