 | 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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional Resources |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Noah
- 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
While the existing article has a lot of notes on the measurements and layout of the building, I think your draft goes into depth about why exactly it may have looked the way it did (You say: "The building is notably smaller and sports less modifications than the nearby synagogue that was excavated during the same time period, which can be attributed to the Christian population in Dura-Europos being much smaller and less affluent than the Jewish population at the time of its construction"). This is a consistent theme I see in your draft, which is that you go beyond the surface level facts provided in the original Wikipedia article and tell us why these things are significant, or why they exist in the way that they do. This is also shown in your paragraph about the procession of women and what it represents. (You say: "they were situated along the eastern wall such that they mimicked the procession of someone walking from the courtyard into the baptistry, which emphasized how one would walk into the baptistry and emerge reborn and purified, just as the women would as they walk towards the tomb of Christ"). Your bibliography seems really strong as well! One thing I would work on is expanding your information about the Persian seige, as I am curious to know more, and based on your work, I think you could add some interesting notes on it. I'd also be curious to see if you were planning on adding any additional photos to the article as I think the existing article is pretty information heavy and lacks adequate visual references.
| 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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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.
Additional Resources |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Noah
- 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
While the existing article has a lot of notes on the measurements and layout of the building, I think your draft goes into depth about why exactly it may have looked the way it did (You say: "The building is notably smaller and sports less modifications than the nearby synagogue that was excavated during the same time period, which can be attributed to the Christian population in Dura-Europos being much smaller and less affluent than the Jewish population at the time of its construction"). This is a consistent theme I see in your draft, which is that you go beyond the surface level facts provided in the original Wikipedia article and tell us why these things are significant, or why they exist in the way that they do. This is also shown in your paragraph about the procession of women and what it represents. (You say: "they were situated along the eastern wall such that they mimicked the procession of someone walking from the courtyard into the baptistry, which emphasized how one would walk into the baptistry and emerge reborn and purified, just as the women would as they walk towards the tomb of Christ"). Your bibliography seems really strong as well! One thing I would work on is expanding your information about the Persian seige, as I am curious to know more, and based on your work, I think you could add some interesting notes on it. I'd also be curious to see if you were planning on adding any additional photos to the article as I think the existing article is pretty information heavy and lacks adequate visual references.