User:User12992239/The Old New Land/Greenleaf22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User12992239


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:User12992239/The Old New Land


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The Old New Land

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


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

The lead section was not updated to include additional content within the historical context or legacy sections.


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

The lead section is clear and concise as is, does not seem to require edits aside from addition of new content.


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

No, it does not, but I am not sure that descriptions of the major sections is necessary for full understanding of this article because it is not long or difficult to navigate.


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

No


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is very concise.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The new content is relevant, particularly the historical context which was missing in the original article. Nice job!

I am not sure how relevant the added plot descriptions are- I guess it depends on the goal of the article. Speaking from my own experience, I do not think wikipedia articles tend to summarize books but I could be wrong. It feels more like a sparknotes page than an encyclopedia.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, there are secondary sources used that are current.


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

See above about relevancy. No content is missing.


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

Yes, it addresses the lack of coverage of Jewish history.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, the content is not making an arguments or claims and is written a neutral tone.


 * 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


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, there are six sources that are a mix of primary and recent secondary sources.


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

From what I can tell, as someone who has not read this book, yes!


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

Having done a few quick searches, it seems pretty challenging to find sources for this topic, so this spread seems to reflect the available literature well.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes.


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

Yes, many authors are listed.


 * 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.)

All of the listed sources seem credible.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

They do!

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Some of the sentences are wordy. ex: "They also learn about the development of new technologies and the establishment of a Jewish university that is at the forefront of scientific research."


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I caught a few errors. ex: "In the summary, the outline of Altneuland was significantly shorten than that of the previously published 1938 copy."

"The Old New Land was significant in the establishment of Zionist ideas at is was publish in the time period of the First Aliyah."


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The major sections of the article are well-thought-out, but I am curious where your addition to the major themes will be placed.

Overall Impressions


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

The addition of historical context as well as the legacy notes definitely improved the quality of the article, but I am unsure about the role of expanding the major themes and plot introduction section. Is the goal of this article to be a summary or an analysis of the book?


 * How can the content added be improved?

Edits to the lead section for added content, fixing a few errors, otherwise- great job!