 | 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 ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing?
RenaissanceMan1389
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- /info/en/?search=User:RenaissanceMan1389/Pope_Alexander_VI?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Pope Alexander VI
Evaluate the drafted changes
(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.)
I noticed that you didn't change the lead. While the lead is already quite complete, you insert a lot of new information in the Early life portion. Maybe add a few concise sentences to the intro to summarize your section or at least to introduce it.
As for the part you worked on, good job! You obviously spent a long time conducting research. It is neutral and clear - two of the most important qualities that Wikipedia articles must have. A few notes: the wikipedia article suffers at times from information flow. There is a lot of information, but it's thrown all at once in huge chunks, hurting readability. For example, you write "In 1460, Pope Pius rebuked Cardinal Borgia for attending a private party which Pius had heard turned into an orgy. Borgia apologized for the incident but denied that there had been an orgy. Pope Pius forgave Borgia, and the true events of the evening remain unknown (60). In 1462, Rodrigo Borgia had his first son, Pedro Luis, with an unknown mistress. He sent Pedro Luis son to grow up in Spain (65). The following year, Borgia acceded to Pope Pius's call for cardinals to help fund a new crusade. Before embarking to lead the crusade personally, Pope Pius II fell ill and died, so Borgia would need to ensure the election of yet another ally to the papacy to maintain his position as vice chancellor." I underlined, bolded, and italicized 2 different topics. Notice how there is a mountain of information that does not really link together. Initially, I thought this article would showcase examples of Borgia's sexual episodes, but then when I reached the section about the crusade, I was confused. Borgia's "need to ensure the election of yet another ally" has little to do with his son Pedro Luis having a mistress mother, which is just one sentence prior. This isn't a huge problem. In fact, Wikipedia articles often have this problem where the information can come together in a sort of Frankenstein form, meaning different pieces of information are just stuck in one paragraph, making it confusing and jumpy. It's just something that forces the reader (me lol) to slow down while reading. Alternatively, you could also just split up the paragraphs more, so this may also be an organization issue. Your paragraphs tend to be on the longer side. Again, not a big deal!
Also, I wonder about the use of "Kingmaker" to describe Borgia. While we use kingmaker in common day speech, I think it may carry a few connotations that hurt the overall neutrality of the article. Perhaps you can say something along the lines of "biographers categorize his role in the election as a Kingmaker", or something. But this isn't a big deal,
Another thing that I want to point out is that you seem to largely use one source. While this source is undoubtably reputable, using only one runs the risk of hurting neutrality/ having differing point of views. You added a great deal of information, so now the entire article looks skewed. You have one giant section in Early Life, while the other sections are nowhere as detailed. This isn't a problem for you, obviously, but rather a testament to your research.
Overall, great job. Super informative and neutral.
| 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 ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing?
RenaissanceMan1389
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- /info/en/?search=User:RenaissanceMan1389/Pope_Alexander_VI?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Pope Alexander VI
Evaluate the drafted changes
(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.)
I noticed that you didn't change the lead. While the lead is already quite complete, you insert a lot of new information in the Early life portion. Maybe add a few concise sentences to the intro to summarize your section or at least to introduce it.
As for the part you worked on, good job! You obviously spent a long time conducting research. It is neutral and clear - two of the most important qualities that Wikipedia articles must have. A few notes: the wikipedia article suffers at times from information flow. There is a lot of information, but it's thrown all at once in huge chunks, hurting readability. For example, you write "In 1460, Pope Pius rebuked Cardinal Borgia for attending a private party which Pius had heard turned into an orgy. Borgia apologized for the incident but denied that there had been an orgy. Pope Pius forgave Borgia, and the true events of the evening remain unknown (60). In 1462, Rodrigo Borgia had his first son, Pedro Luis, with an unknown mistress. He sent Pedro Luis son to grow up in Spain (65). The following year, Borgia acceded to Pope Pius's call for cardinals to help fund a new crusade. Before embarking to lead the crusade personally, Pope Pius II fell ill and died, so Borgia would need to ensure the election of yet another ally to the papacy to maintain his position as vice chancellor." I underlined, bolded, and italicized 2 different topics. Notice how there is a mountain of information that does not really link together. Initially, I thought this article would showcase examples of Borgia's sexual episodes, but then when I reached the section about the crusade, I was confused. Borgia's "need to ensure the election of yet another ally" has little to do with his son Pedro Luis having a mistress mother, which is just one sentence prior. This isn't a huge problem. In fact, Wikipedia articles often have this problem where the information can come together in a sort of Frankenstein form, meaning different pieces of information are just stuck in one paragraph, making it confusing and jumpy. It's just something that forces the reader (me lol) to slow down while reading. Alternatively, you could also just split up the paragraphs more, so this may also be an organization issue. Your paragraphs tend to be on the longer side. Again, not a big deal!
Also, I wonder about the use of "Kingmaker" to describe Borgia. While we use kingmaker in common day speech, I think it may carry a few connotations that hurt the overall neutrality of the article. Perhaps you can say something along the lines of "biographers categorize his role in the election as a Kingmaker", or something. But this isn't a big deal,
Another thing that I want to point out is that you seem to largely use one source. While this source is undoubtably reputable, using only one runs the risk of hurting neutrality/ having differing point of views. You added a great deal of information, so now the entire article looks skewed. You have one giant section in Early Life, while the other sections are nowhere as detailed. This isn't a problem for you, obviously, but rather a testament to your research.
Overall, great job. Super informative and neutral.