User:Thamyco/Golus nationalism/Dolly City Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Thamyco


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thamyco/Golus_nationalism?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Golus nationalism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I think that the existing lead is good, but you can add to it what you wrote under "summary," though the reference to Zionism should come at the end and not the beginning of the paragraph - first say what Galosh Nationalism is, and only later what it is not
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? the original 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? yes. for example, the mention of Alljudentum, or Pan-Judaism. It should be mentioned and developed in a sentence or two within the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, but if you can find additional sources from recent years it will make it better.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article still requires some development
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The topic itself is underrepresented in Jewish history, which in the context of nationalism focuses on Zionism.

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 you need to add more sources and more citations
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are women among the authors
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes, but check the format of footnote 3.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? the content is well written, but it should be consolidated - instead of sentence paragraph organize the information into one paragraph, with proper connections between the sentences.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? not that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It might be better to separate between "Origins" and "related theories". Maybe it is worth adding a short subsection about Nathan Birnbaum. Also, maybe it's worth dedicating a section to the comparison with Zionism, since you mention it at the beginning and also in the body. Nonetheless, don't let Zionism overshadow it :) it might defeat the purpose.

Images and Media - N/A
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It still requires development
 * What are the strengths of the content added? You added more recent sources and there are interesting points that didn't apear in the original article (Such as Kafka!)
 * How can the content added be improved? Decide what do you want to focus on and dive in. It's better to make a significant contribution to 1-2 section rather than minor revisions to the entire article.