User:Todd Andrea/Gnosticism/Lancelotsdaughter Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Todd Andrea


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Todd%20Andrea/Gnosticism?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * The initial lead of the article has not been touched. The user plans to focus on the "Sophia" section.
 * Not much was added but I noticed rewording of this section to ensure clarity.

Content


 * Yes, the content added was relevant.
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date.
 * I think there is content missing that you could expand upon. I would say just small content on Sophia which you mentioned you planned on adding.
 * I do not believe this article covers those topics considering its realm of study.

Tone And Balance


 * Yes, the content added seems to be neutral.
 * In my opinion, I do not believe there is anything heavily biased portrayed in this article.
 * No, no particular viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * No, the content added is not meant to persuade the reader.

Sources And References


 * I am unable to see your sources implemented in your sandbox. Make sure you are citing as you work so you do not have to go back later on and fill it in. I am also not seeing any references on your sandbox page. Make sure to go back through the bibliography and citing modules to not miss anything for the final edit! Also, I think your structure on your Bibliography may be off. I noticed the examples were still present which may throw off your references when you try to cite in your sandbox. Your sources that I did see in your bibliography looked great! Just make sure you have the correct formatting so it transfers over easier. I can help with this in class!
 * Yes, it seems as though the sources would reflect what the cited sources say. However, I just can't seem to find the cited sources in your sandbox.
 * Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * I would say so!
 * I found these when I typed in the topic on OU libraries so I believe these are reliable and peer-reviewed.
 * Going through the bibliography, they worked.

Organization


 * Yes, the content is well-written and easy to read!
 * Grammar looks good throughout the article. However, "behaviour" is supposed to be spelled "behavior" but I also not know if the original person who wrote the article was using a traditional English spelling.
 * Yes, the content is well organized. I especially liked how the user organized their sandbox to show exactly what they edited. They pasted the same paragraph with the additions and edits directly under the original.

Images And Media


 * The user did not add any images or media into their sandbox.

For New Articles Only


 * This is not a new article.

Overall Impressions


 * The content added has improved the overall quality of the article and made it more complete.
 * The strengths of this article is it's in depth detail on Sophia and its mission to ensure clarity. Compared to the original writing, the user has already made it so much easier to understand the article's major points. Keep on going!
 * The content can be improved by making sure to cite while you're writing. While I was reviewing, it was a bit confusing to see the source it came from.
 * What I have learned from your article is that I need to focus more on providing clarity within my additions and what was previously there. I was so focused on my additions that I overlooked editing what already existed. I now see the importance because of the fabulous work you have done.

Great job!!!

Bibliography notes under Sources and References.