User:Lukenam12/Jejueo/Zainachaudhry Peer Review

Peer review

The lead of this article is detailed and powerful. The lead generally includes information that is mentioned in the article. The lead gives some insight into what the article will discuss. Perhaps the lead could be more concise because the article does cover the subjects in detail. The content added is relevant to the topic. There is a wide use of examples and tables which makes the content visually easy to understand for the reader. The content added is neutral overall and tends to be representative of objective facts rather than opinions. The article does not hold a heavy bias towards any side. Relatively, there is an underrepresentation of the geographical distribution of the language and an overrepresentation of the vocabulary and grammar parts of the article. Perhaps giving more geographical context would be helpful for the reader. The article overall could be more concise. It is too heavily detailed for an ordinary reader. The article uses images which are captions which are helpful for the reader. They are properly copyrighted and are visually appealing. The article has an exhaustive list of sources, mostly secondary sources and current. The links of the sources seem to work.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)