User:Tul10616/Aniconism in Judaism/Amir Rafeh Peer Review

General info
User: Tul10616
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Tul10616/Aniconism in Judaism
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Aniconism in Judaism

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.)

Today, I'll be reviewing student Tul10618's article on Aniconism in Judaism. I will incorporate some feedback and tackle the students draft as a whole to investigate its reliability. To give some context, this article tackles prohibition of any man made portrayal of god, but incorporates the Hebrew Bible to look into texts, historical context, and differences across media


 * 1) Is the Content relevant to the topic?
 * 2) Yes, the students article draft is relevant to the topic. In relation to the article, it tackles Iconoclasm in relation to the Duras Synagogue in Syria
 * 3) Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information
 * 4) Yes, the student's article draft has a reference list with a single secondary source. I mentioned the source in the first question alongside the citation. The source comes from JSTOR which is known to host a plethora of reliable sources.
 * 5) Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * 6) The content added by the student does not seem to persuade the reader but instead adds onto a point. For the current version of the article as a whole, there's no real persuasion happening but more clarification where it highs light on missing or unanswered topics.
 * 7) Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * 8) Yes, the students grammar and language were all concise, clear and easy to read throughout the paragraph. It also has proper use of citations