User:Hms2026/Ahad Ha'am/Greenleaf22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hms2026


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Hms2026/Ahad Ha'am


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ahad Ha'am

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


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

It seems like the lead section was not updated with new content, just reorganized for clarity. The 'public literature' section, which appears to be new, could be added to the lead section to better reflect the content of the article.


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

You all edited the lead section to have more concise sentences, which disperses the introductory sentence a bit but definitely makes the information easier to follow. Adding that he supported cultural zionism to the introductory sentence could strengthen the introductory sentence and give a better preview to the context of his work as a Hebrew journalist and essayist.


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

It does not, but I am not sure that brief descriptions of all of the sections is necessary for the reader to understand the layout of the article.


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

No.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is fairly concise! It is definitely more clear than it is in the original article, as the long sentences were challenging to follow. It does not include extraneous information.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The biggest bulk of new content I see is the 'public literature' section, which heavily discusses Ha-Shiloah. While this section is relevant to Ahad Ha'am, this newspaper has it's own wikipedia page (Ha-Shiloaḥ), so I'm wondering if this is the place for information about pillars.

You've noted that you edited the Biography, Zionist Activism, Importance of Hebrew and Jewish Culture, Cultural Zionism, Political Influence, and Legacy and commemoration sections, but I cannot tell what material is existing and what material you added. Can you make notes about what parts you edited? Otherwise all content seems relevant to Ha'am.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Your sources seem fairly recent, so I'm inclined to believe that this information is up-to-date.


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

I can't pinpoint information that would be missing from this article, and I highlighted earlier the question of the Ha-Shiloaḥ information existing in this page.


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

It does- the very purpose of this class project is to increase Wikipedia coverage of Jewish history!

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?

The only thing I read as potentially not neutral is the line about him being a 'talented negotiator' but it seems harmless. You used very academic, neutral language that flows smoothly with the rest of the article.


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

No!


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Nope!


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

Negative!

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

There are barely any in-text citations for your new 'public literature' section. Uh oh! It seems like most of these sentences would require citations in order for it to be correctly cited. I am not too sure what our policy is for when a bunch of information all comes from the same source- maybe citing at the end of a string of related sentences works?? Either way, there isn't a citation in this section below the forth sentence.

I also saw some points where the citations from the original article were not carried over to your sandbox, thus leaving facts uncited.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Having read Ahad Ha'am in class, this article is reflective of what I learned about him. The new section aligns with the existing wikipedia page for Ha-Shiloah. Seems all good.


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

Ahad Ha'am is a very well known figure and there is a lot of literature written about him. It would likely be impossible to reflect all of the available literature in your sources.


 * Are the sources current?

The sources seem to be current, citing both the primary literature and recent secondary literature. Having seven citations seems adaquate for the scope of this project, especially given than the original article has quite a few more.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

There are many different authors listed.


 * 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.)

You used credible sources! The only thing I am noticing is that there are a few encyclopedia-ish sources on there, which I think our prof mentioned is not the best option because wikipedia is also an encyclopedia.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

They do!

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The writing is very clear and concise. Sentence structure is good. It is fairly easy to read and understand.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I noticed a few errors during my read-through, but can't track all them down now. I would re-read everything slowly and you may be able to pick up on a few spelling/grammatical errors. Ex, the bolding at the top of the public literature section is misplaced, the third sentence in public literature ends with a comma


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I think your public literature section could benefit from restructuring. Currently it has two subtitles: Ha-Shiloah and Writings On Palestine. Think more deeply about what this section is trying to convey.

Overall Impressions


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

Outside of the new section, I am not sure what you added to the original sections.

The public literature section adds context to Ha'am's work and how his impact manifested, but I think some of it takes the focus away from Ha'am specifically and would be better placed elsewhere (although certainly referenced and linked in this article).


 * How can the content added be improved?

Improved citations, checking for spelling/grammatical errors, more structural cohesion with the public literature section

~