User:UaPro/Sultan Han/A-zheng97 Peer Review

General info
(provide username) UaPro
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UaPro/Sultan_Han?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Sultan Han

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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, I do think the lead works as it is. Clear and concise and summarizes the article which is about the Sultan Han.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, I do think the lead has a strong introductory sentence that starts off the article strong.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

I do think the lead nicely summarizes what is to be expected in the rest of the article without giving too much information.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, information seems to all surround the history and significance of the architecture and its impact but doesn’t touch any opinionated or gray areas the topic could go.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

From all the content I see, it seems up to date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I do see under the talk page that some information was missing. Removed by admins but then the user re added that same information and was flagged again. I definitely think more information could be added as it was fairly short and seemed lacking material. References were very minimal and sources seem unreliable.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, the Sultan Han might be one of the less talked about monuments considering the amount of new information added wasn't as much as the current information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, neutral and informational. No biased or opinionated remarks or personal thoughts on the topic. There are no words like “I think” or “it could” words that hint at different meanings.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, the article, like I said, wasn't too different from the original.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, neutral article that covered the different ranges regarding the mosque. Focusing on the history and impact.


 * 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


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

I would say no, because under the talk panel. He was flagged because none of the cited sources support the new material so it makes me question if the sources are reliable sources and if they relate to the article topic.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

I would say it has adequate information, except one link (third one) was not a working source. URL was not even available.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, within 10 years


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Mediocre, in the middle most were online sources that were not scholarly.


 * 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.)

There is always more information on the internet, google scholar is a great place for more detailed scholarly articles and free pdf downloads.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Most of them except for one. Comparing it to the sandbox draft some sources were not present.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

I do think the content added ads to the quality of the article. I would say look more into scholarly articles under good scholars or make sure to emphasize the reliability of each source. I think the article itself could use more information, like really look into the history and significance of the Sultan Han. Old architecture always has an interesting backstory of how it comes to be and it could be interesting to look into that.

My article on the Hiran Minar had an interesting backstory. For images look for some diagrams of the layout of the architecture would be nice to add.