User talk:Ramsabeoulve/sandbox

Hello, Below is the peer review I have written. Thanks. - General info

Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)

Ramsabeoulve

Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Ramsabeoulve/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

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

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

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

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

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

N/A

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes

Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes

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

Content belongs.

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

No

Content evaluation

There is not a lot of content that is being edited or added, but from what little is changed, it can be seen that the changes stay on topic and are consistent with the article's message. Changes consist primarily of subtle clarifications that manage to not take away from the article itself.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Mostly

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No

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

Tone and balance evaluation

The edits made are not particularly skewed toward any position and are by large neutral. The edits made do, however, involve references to the "Ten commandments" which other articles regarding mortal sin scarcely mention, and may involve some level of personal interpretation that is not necessarily supported by a source (see below). The above edits also mark a slight shift in tone from the decidedly neutral original article. The content changed itself is actually supported by a previous source cited (see: "Catechism of the Catholic Church"), though.

"Consider a grave matter like murder: if accidental, such as a misfiring gun. This was without intent or consent and would likely not be a grave sin."

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

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

Mostly

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

Yes

Are the sources current?

Yes

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

Not applicable in this situation

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Sources and references evaluation

No new links are introduced. All references are references that were used in the original article.

Organization

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?

No

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

Yes

Organization evaluation

There are no glaring mistakes in composition or grammar, given that the edits made are primarily based around explicating and correcting existing points within the original article. The edits might read faintly pedantic at times, but overall is smooth.

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

N/A

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

N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

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

The edits made are primarily quality-of-life edits that do not impact the overall message of the article. Given that the edits are supported with sources, they do improve the quality of the article.

What are the strengths of the content added?

There is not necessarily enough content to make a qualitative judgement. However, what is present is of sound quality, save for a few misgivings. Although the edits read a little pedantic at times, they make positive contributions overall.

How can the content added be improved?

More, quality edits can improve the content. Of the edits, it is apparent that more sources are necessary to support the claims made by the editor, as the sources used are all sources originally in the article already.

Overall evaluation

See above.

Rizfermier (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)