User talk:CPotter96/Golden Haggadah

'''Peer review

General info''' Whose work are you reviewing? CPotter96 Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CPotter96/Golden_Haggadah#cite_note-:1-4

Lead:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead section has remained the same Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead introduces the topic well Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?no, a better outline in the lead would be helpful Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, but it looks like he plans on including that in the content section later on Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?concise Lead evaluation Needs to be expanded on but I know you'll get there

Content:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?yes Is the content added up-to-date?yes, includes modern theories of the original patron Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?The history sections is well developed, but the other sections need more information. Content evaluation  The content you have added is good and very detailed, you just need more in other sections to balance it out, I can tell you're working on doing that because you have the headings for other sections

Tone and Balance:

Is the content added neutral?yes with the theories especially both the merit and the problems with each theory is there Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?no Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?not really, every theory seems to be well explained Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?no Tone and balance evaluation good, clinical tone, and balanced representation of patron theories

Sources and References:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?a source for the current theory is needed Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?yes Are the sources current?yes books published within 10 years and up to date websites Check a few links. Do they work?yes Sources and references evaluation

Organization:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?' The diffrent theories are a little dense to read, a more defined section would help the reader break it down and understand it better.'' Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?no spelling errors found, sometimes clunky or writing style that doesn't flow Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?Yes, the headings he added will help too with the break down of content. Organization evaluation I really like you presented so many different theories of who the patron could be because it is obviously important to the history of the book, but it is a little overwhelming for a first section, maybe there is a better way to break it down or include it in a section of its own.

Images and Media: No new images or media was added

Overall impressions Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? ''absolutely! this article had practically nothing to begin with and you've already added so much. If your other sections are as strong as this one you're going to have a great page''

What are the strengths of the content added? ''Super interesting! I really liked reading about all the different theories. It makes the reader feel involved.'' How can the content added be improved? ''just more content to different sections. '' Overall evaluation ''super good start! try not to get too wrapped up into this one section. there's a lot of good information here, i'd love to see what else you could find. ''

--Maceym25 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)