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?

Njacobs9

Link to draft you're reviewing

/info/en/?search=User:Njacobs9/Dura-Europos_church?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

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

Dura-Europos church

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, new information is written about the building and how it has changed over time.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the source used is from 2011.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, most 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.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, the information written is facts about the building and is not an opinion or an argument supporting one particular side.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the information is research-based information from the source.
• 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.

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there is one source provided.
• 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, the source is a book about the topic from a research journal website which reflects the amount of research there is on the topic.
• Are the sources current? Yes, from 2011.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There is only one source provided. You should try to use the other sources you included in your bibliography to add more information.
• 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?

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the information is easy to read, but would be better if you put the information into which sections of the article you will add you information to.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical or spelling-errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? You should break down the information you wrote into sections to organize your work.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images are added.
• Are images well-captioned? No images are added.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images are added.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images are added.

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I think that information about the church's background of how it was originally just a ordinary house will be interesting to include in the article to make it more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added? It is backed up by a reliable source, but would be more strong if you added more sources to support the information.
• How can the content added be improved? Add more sources and add some images to polish the look of the content.