User:Hms2026/Ahad Ha'am/User12992239 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hms2026 and That guy5947


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link
 * 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?

The lead has been updated but only slightly to reflect some minor difference between the article. The updated lead does not include information about new content.


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

The introductory sentence does introduce the topic and describes it well.


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

Yes, it provides a a good brief intro to 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 concise and does not include too much information that it becomes confusing.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The added content is relevant I think that information added in the Zionist Activism section is very interesting and a small but meaningful change. The biggest content change is the section pertaining to Public Literature and the section regarding the Ha-shiloah. The information is relevant to the topic but I am not sure as to which point the content is necessary to talk about in this article because there is a separate wiki page dedicated to specifically the Ha-shiloah.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes


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

The information about the Ha-shiloah may not belong in such detail in this article


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

This article deals with one of the foremost Zionist leaders which is a hugely important.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?

The content that I can see that has been edited is neutral and reads as informative and not as argumentative.


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

No


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No


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

No, but it does provide a lot of background information that could help a reader form an opinion of their own.

Sources and References


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

The Public Literature section does not include citations directly following a lot of the information that is included and this leads me to believe that there are just lacking in text citations and not that the information is made up. I am also confused about what sources have been added as citations versus what has been added as published works.


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

Unclear as some information hasn't been directly cited but the information with in text citations is accurate


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

They are thorough but they don't reflect the best available literature


 * Are the sources current?

Yes


 * 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.)

As noted above there are better sources available that don't include encyclopedias.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Attached links do work

Organization


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

Yes, it reads very clear and does read like an informative article.


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

Not that I can see.


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

The content is well organized but I think that the revisions could be better organized as it is difficult to tell what has actually been edited as there are sections that have been labeled as edited but I cannot see any difference. ie: legacy and commemoration.

Overall Impressions


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

I think that the added content is interesting and informative and helps create a more full/whole article. My concern with the Public Literature section is all I have in regards to excess information. Like I also mentioned earlier the Zionist Activism section edits are great and do add quality to the article much like the small edits you made in the Biography section. I think that small edits like those could be supplemented elsewhere in the article to just bolster information that has already been provided.


 * How can the content added be improved?

I think that adding information that builds upon existing information is good for this article as it is already a very comprehensive article and adding completely new info could end up going on a tangent away from the general focus of the article that is Ha'am.