User talk:Veeyva/sandbox

Nice evaluation. I appreciate the detail that you came up with. Carolyncunningham (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Brian's Peer Review
Pending review of Veeyva article "African Methodist Episcopal Church"

The Lead

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes. The lead of the article is drafted very well. It serves as a solid introduction to the content and does not get into too much detail.

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes. The lead ties all of the content and does not rob the other sections of their ability to expand on the subject. The lead is a good reference guide through the article.

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? The "structure" section of the article could be better represented in the lead, but I recognize the task of getting that into the lead without bombarding a reader early.

The Article

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? I would argue that "Church Name" and "motto" could fit inside of the "History" or "Beliefs" section headers and be a bullet there instead of being their own sections.

Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The current organization of the article is fine. It flows well and my previous suggestion is not representative of any disruption in the article; I recommend it because "History" sounds more all encompassing and could house the "name". On its own, the name header seems less prominent. "Motto" seems to have been presented twice.

First, what does the article do well? The article's side-bar does a great job of providing information at a glance. It also features the media images that help illustrate content for readers, instead of the article just being a data dump of info.

Is there anything from your review that impressed you?

The article is thorough. It describes not only the structure of the church but also the purpose of each of its branches. Its addition of media to put faces to the names of the individuals is also powerful.

Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

I appreciated the line that reads "The 'Doctrine and Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Church' is revised at every General Conference and published every four years". It suggests that this wiki article will be regularly tended to as the church continues to evolve in the future.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?

The "districts" section feels lengthy, though I understand that listing 20 individual districts within an article presents certain difficulties. The same could be said of the "Bishops" section; it reads more like a list then it does an article. Any article that has to break down a territory or group of leaders will run into this issue, I imagine. Also, I'd be interested in why the four horsemen are separated from the rest of the group. They seem very prominent but the article doesn't expand on them much.

Why would those changes be an improvement? It would serve to condense the article so that the text reads as content and not just a series of names and places.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The authors of this article could consider referencing readers to the "external links" or "further reading" sections earlier on. If there is a means to link the section itself as a citation it would serve readers well, especially in the districts, bishops, and officers section. I feel like it would bridge readers to richer content like media (in addition to what the article already has) on these websites.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? The organization of this article is much cleaner and more effective than the article that I am a contributor on. The AME article lets the reader know exactly what they are going to be taking in while the Call-out culture article is much too broad (and the contributors of Call-out culture are much more combative, sadly) Btorszag (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Btorszag (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)