Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: 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? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? 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.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have 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? 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? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

Whose work are you reviewing?

Emmacmckee

Link to draft you're reviewing

/info/en/?search=User:Emmacmckee/Am_Olam?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Am Olam

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead: The lead written in the sandbox is also on the published page. There is some additional information on the published page that I do not see in the user sandbox, but the lead does seem to accurately reflect the information added. The lead is concise and clear. It does reflect what the article delves into, but it could have a bit more information regarding the specific sections which the article discusses. Perhaps mention the existing composition of the American states in which Am Olam settlers were looking to establish colonies? None of the states were Northeastern, which makes sense because the Am Olam settlers were looking to set up farming settlements. Maybe you could state this in the lead to make it very clear to readers why the states in which colonies were established were chosen? This could also be content in your "Overview" section under "Arrival in the U.S.". I would be curious to see if there are any sources that address why these specific states were chosen for colonies when it was clear that agricultural life was not easy and the colonies were beholden to floods and drought over and over again. Additionally, in the lead on the published page, the text states that there were 8 states in which colonies were established, but your sandbox only addresses 4 states in which there were colonies. Maybe you could add to that section of the lead and list all of the states so that readers know where settlers were living even if you don't delve into all of them specifically? Or perhaps the list could move to your overview where you also state that there were 26 colonies across 8 states? Just a thought.

Content: The content added is relevant to the topic and is up to date. It seems as though the content covers a wide-range of information, and there is nothing that strikes me as out of place. Perhaps you could add some information about how these groups migrated to America and where they got the funds to set up colonies? Was there a language barrier? Something else you might want to consider adding a bit more to is in your "Overview" sub-section in the section "Arrival in the U.S.". You mention that most of the Jewish immigrants associated with Am Olam were Orthodox. Did their sect of Judaism affect how they ran their colonies? Were the colonies rooted in religion? Was the Am Olam movement a secular movement in which many Orthodox Jews participated, or was it a religious movement? Like I mentioned in the lead section, I think that if you don't elaborate on the states in which the colonies were established there, I would add that information to your "Overview" section or create new sections for the states you have not yet addressed. I think that the whole topic was underrepresented on Wikipedia prior to these edits, so I think that the content does fill a gap. Perhaps you could also add some information about the age make-up of the settlers? You mention that communes everywhere except for in South Dakota were composed of families, so I would be curious to see if you could find information regarding the percentages of adult men compared to adult women compared to children. It's not necessary information, but it could be interesting especially in comparison to the colony in South Dakota composed of all young single men.

Tone/Balance: The content added seems neutral to me. I do think that there could be a bit more explained regarding the pogroms and how Jews wanted to flee Russia to evade further violence and persecution. I do not pick up on any bias throughout this article. The content reads as very objective across the board, and does a good job presenting information without any attempts to persuade a reader to feel one way or another.

Sources/References: All new content seems to be grounded in good secondary sources. The writing in the article accurately reflects the information conveyed in the sources. The sources are thorough, and many of the sources used came up when I searched for sources on the topic as well. There are a good number of sources used, so it is clear that the content written is not just coming from one article or source. There are a couple instances in which the same source is referenced repeatedly and is the only source referenced in a section, such as in the sections on specific states. The sources seem to be current and highly relevant to the topic discussed. The sources are certainly from a diverse range of authors, but it seems as though some of the sources have been published by press groups, such as Cambridge University, so it's hard to tell what minority groups the authors might represent. All of the links worked when I tried them.

Organization: The content is extremely well organized. The sections are clear and cohesively tell a chronological story. The sections are easy to read and concise. There are some grammar and spelling errors throughout the text, such as in the third sentence in the section "Response from Jewish Intellectuals in Russia" and a spelling error in the last sentence in the "Oregon" section. You also might want to check the capitalization of some things. Should Orthodox in "Orthodox Jews" be capitalized? I think "orthodox" and "Orthodox" might mean two different things from my Googling, so maybe check this out! If you read the content out loud, you'll probably catch any other existing typos/grammar errors!

Images/Media: N/A

Overall: I think that the content added absolutely improves the quality of the existing article. The article is definitely much more complete, and the content added certainly enriches a reader's understanding of both the context in which the Am Olam movement existed as well as what the movement aimed to do and eventually did. I think more could be added both about the individual states, perhaps following a thread that compares and contrasts them to one another, as well as about the other states in which colonies were established.