User talk:Aliyaa97/sandbox

Peer review I am reviewing Aliyaa97 here is the link to draft I am reviewing Aliyaa97/Beliefs and Theology of the Nation of Islam. The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer Aliyaa97; the lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic, it includes a brief description of the article's major sections, and the lead is concise. The content added is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date; I don’t think there is content that does not belong to the article. The content added is neutral, and there are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position, Aliyaa97 is doing a great job in this article, she is keeping the content objective. The content added attempt to persuade the reader in a neutral and informative way, by showing evidence and content that is not trying to be bias or persuasive.(Lechuga271 (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC))

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Aliyaa97 Link to draft you're reviewing:User: Aliyaa97/Beliefs and theology of the Nation of Islam Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I would say that the lead that had been updated reflects the new content added. The lead added in this article talks about the origin of the Wikipedia topic which is "Beliefs and theology of the Nation of Islam". Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I would say that the lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. Since it states what the Nation of Islam is known for, it becomes clear where it originates from as well as who is the founder, which is Wallace Fard Muhammad. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, rather it gives an overview of how the belief started. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not include information that is already present in the text. The only thing that is mention in the next few paragraphs includes Elijah Muhammad but not, in the same manner, it was in the portion added. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added was relevant to the topic since it applied to how the topic can to be, but I do think that more could've been added into different paragraphs. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content added is up-to-date. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do think that nothing is missing and everything belongs but I would like there to be more information added such like historical backgrounds and practices. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? In a sense, the article does deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps since there is not much material of the topic covered in it's wiki page. I do not think that the article entirely addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations or other since there is not much overage on there. Coverage is what the article is lacking in general. Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is in a neutral tone and does not exemplify any bias. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there does not appear to be any heavily bias towards a particular position at all. It all appears to be neutral. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, their view points are neither overrepresented nor underrepresented. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added did not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:The links given

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? In terms of the original article, not all is backed up with a reliable source, but with the ones added appear to be somewhat reliable. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the source is thorough. Are the sources current? Yes, the source is current. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I don't think that the sources are particularly written by a diverse spectrum of authors since there is not much variation of authors. Check a few links. Do they work? The links given do work. Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise, clear, and easy to read since it is straightforward. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, the content does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is well-organized since it is in the section origins. Organization evaluation Images and Media

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? Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I would say that the content did add to the article and approve the quality a little. A way to improve the quality is to add other subsections and place new information on topics not covered. No, the article is not complete. What are the strengths of the content added? The strength of the content added is that it is simple and clear. How can the content added be improved? As previously mentioned, it can be improved by talking about other topics not mentioned such as the historical background. (I'd recommend looking at other wiki articles to see what's missing). Overall evaluation Alexa114258 (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)