User:Mkcharlie32/Tkhine/Sarah Silberman Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review. NOTE: Review written ~3:45 pm on Friday the 8th -- review of the information, not much of the writing itself (can re-review when the actual text is in).

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Mkcharlie32
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mkcharlie32/Tkhine

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, could use more information in there

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes but the sources need to be linked/citations need to be added
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No actual links used, just books. Could link to purchasing the book possibly

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Not written as of the time of this review
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can see at this point
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Well organized, section titles should be renamed to be more clear

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No media
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No media
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No media

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The sandbox definitely has more information than the existing article, but the information needs to actually be written down. So far though it seems very thorough
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Has much more information than the existing article, does a good job of breaking down both the importance of the tkhines and the content of them
 * How can the content added be improved? Could include a specific section on its significance or some examples (both Yiddish and English, probably). Should add media to talk about both older and more modern tkhines. The main thing is that at the time of this review the article hasn't actually been mostly written, so it's a bit tough to say how writing could be improved. The one section that is written though (first paragraph of Background Information) could be rewritten for clarity -- the first sentence reads a little oddly.

Overall evaluation
Overall a really great start to the article. Once it gets written I can go back and do an actual review of it including the writing, but unfortunately this is the only time I have to do this today. I am really looking forward to reading the final version and think that this has a lot of promise to it. The only other thing would be to definitely use more than one source, because the way the page numbers after the information reads leads me to believe that it is just one source being used so far. Good article and the final version will definitely be great. ~