User talk:Jpeashoes/Orans

Peer Review
Here are the comments I left after my review: *I left the same message in the Peer Review Talk Page! :)

=== Lead[edit][edit] === Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It doesn't seem as though the lead has been updated, but it is very informative so I almost wouldn't touch it.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The intro. sentence explains what an Oran is well!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does a good job explaining explaining a brief history of what Orans are, which the article also delved into! I would add a bit about their depictions in art to connect that piece, as well!
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * I am not seeing any!
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel the Lead is concise and provides an appropriate amount of detail! I would update the paragraph to include art depiction!

=== Content[edit][edit] === Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is relevant! :)
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I am not seeing any content missing, to my knowledge.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, I do not believe this article addresses any equity gap.

=== Tone and Balance[edit][edit] === Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

=== Sources and References[edit][edit] === Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the content is backed by their sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, I feel these sources accurately reflect the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources come from a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * 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.)
 * I believe the selected sources do a good job representing the material.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links I clicked work!

=== Organization[edit][edit] === Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes! :)
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I am not seeing 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?
 * Yes, the content is well-organized.

=== Images and Media[edit][edit] === Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Absolutely.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * I would say these photos are captioned well to describe what the figure is doing, but I would add descriptions of color, background, etc. if possible!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, I believe so!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes!

=== For New Articles Only[edit][edit] === * I don't believe this is a new article

=== Overall impressions[edit][edit] === Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes! The added content provides context to help the audience further understand the presence (or lack thereof) of female leadership in the church during this time.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The added content is very clear and provides important information. It is also cited correctly!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I wouldn't change anything!

'**Great job! :))'

Good work!! Todd Andrea (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)