User talk:Mar Rosario/sandbox

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? (Mar Rosario) Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mar Rosario/sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? PEER FEEDBACK: This is phrased a bit odd, but I believe in relation to the Censer article itself the "Lead" starts off strong in Rosario's Sandbox article. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? PEER FEEDBACK: Yes, I do believe Rosario's introductory is concise with the articles topic. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? PEER FEEDBACK: I believe it could be more cohesive and include a more in depth break down in terms of what the article will discuss. In other words a more articulated break down what what will be discussed and then put down into the information's respectful sections would be more stream lined and read better. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? PEER FEEDBACK: Yes, under the Heading of Middle Eastern, I believe she added very important information and expanded the section as a whole. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? PEER FEEDBACK: The lead is concise but needs to be structured a bit better. What I mean by this, is what I previously stated in regards to "the article's major sections." It can be broken down better, which will help the rest of the article "read" and flow better as a whole. Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? PEER REVIEW: Yes the content added is relevant to the topic. My added advice would be to be more specific in terms of dates, names, and general information in terms of the body of the article. In other words t expand upon the subjects discussed. Is the content added up-to-date? PEER REVIEW: Yes, the content added is up-to-date. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? PEER REVIEW: The Pomander tidbit of information was interesting but perhaps not relevant to the over all information being discussed. Maybe expand on other Censer's that come from the Islamic world or found in different areas that are discussed in the Censer article itself? Also, as previously mentioned, I would expand on the information given in the article, maybe give a few more examples like the censer held at the MET that you have discussed: as well as, give more details about that censer. Just expand on the information in the two paragraphs after the LEAD. Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? PEER REVIEW: Yes, I personally believe that the content added is neutral. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? PEER REVIEW: No. There are no bias claims in the article in question. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? PEER REVIEW: I do not believe any view points are over-represented or under-represented. That being said, once again I would just expand on the information that you already have. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? PEER REVIEW: No, There is no sense of persuasion from the editor. Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? PEER REVIEW: The majority of the new content is backed up by secondary sources. May need to add a few more sources.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? PEER REVIEW: Yes, the majority of the sources are thorough, I would suggest getting even more sources, especially outside of Wikipedia. Are the sources current? PEER REVIEW: Yes, the sources are current. Check a few links. Do they work? PEER REVIEW: Yes, the links seem to work well. Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? PEER REVIEW: The content is concise and mostly clear. It needs to be structured a bit better and be more thorough with the information that is given. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? PEER REVIEW: The content does have grammatical and spelling errors. The Wrong use of tense is often a problem. I would say, it just needs to be spell checked in word. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? PEER REVIEW: The content could be organized a bit better. I would say this will come naturally when some extra content is added/expanded upon, especially in the "body" of the article. 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? PEER REVIEW: Yes, great job adding media. Are images well-captioned? PEER REVIEW: Yes, the images are well captioned. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? PEER REVIEW: Yes, as far as I can see the images do meet Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? PEER REVIEW: Yes, I would say so. The positioning may be improved depending on how the are presented in the article itself, but over all they look visually great. 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? PEER REVIEW: Yes, the content has improved the quality of the article. It has created a section that expands on Censers. What are the strengths of the content added? PEER REVIEW: The content has added to the over all information to Censers. It attempts to go into specifics of a time, place, region (in this case being the Middle East). How can the content added be improved? PEER REVIEW: The content just needs to be expanded upon and once expanded, just needs to be structured in a coherent way. As previously stated this can be done by including more sources, going into more in depth information in regards to what you have already laid out as a body of work, and being more specific by adding dates for example. Overall evaluation

PEER REVIEW: Overall, the information you have added to this article is great preliminary content. Just expand and I am positive it will be fantastic. You have done a great job so far! Oh, and just pay attention to tense usage and some spelling here and there, other than that you are on your way towards having an amazing addition to Censers!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by James Flavio Ortiz (talk • contribs)

Prof. Neumeier comments
Hi Triana, a few comments:

--Overall, good job, but now is the time to start cleaning up the text and resolve your notes about adding citations, other references, etc.

--" as well as the frankincense trade present in the Arabian peninsula since the 8th century BC" (Do you mean CE or BCE?)

--"The distribution of set incense burners through land or sea was a common practice." (I am not sure what you mean here, are you talking about trade? And what is a set incense burner? Clarify)

And some edits to the text:

--"11th century Tajikistan" TO "11th-century Tajikistan"

"as bronze or gold where reserved" TO "as bronze or gold were reserved"

"others like the one in the MET could reach to 85 cm" TO "others like an example in the Metropolitan Museum in New York could reach to 85 cm"

"In mosque, incense burners lacked the zoomorphic designs popular in secular settings." TO "In mosques, incense burners lacked the zoomorphic designs popular in secular settings."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by E Neumeier (talk • contribs)