User:Josibgrbbn/Reichsbund jüdischer Frontsoldaten/Lily.Weissman Peer Review

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.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Josibgrbbn

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Josibgrbbn/Reichsbund jüdischer Frontsoldaten
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead/ history

- Not included in the sandbox draft

- The origin paragraph is a pretty good start to the article, but I think it would be nice to have a short lead section ahead of this section that gave a little more background on the time period, geographical location, and the RjF before diving into the article.

Content:

-The content all appears to be relevant and up-to-date

-The "refounding" section at the end of the article is very short and, in its current state, does not add much to the article. I think it would be interesting and would improve the article to lengthen and expand upon the content already present in this section. I think talking about modern resurgences or lack thereof would help to frame the movement in history and give additional context to the reader.

-In terms of addressing an equity gap, an interesting angle might be to research if there were Sephardi, or other groups besides Ashkenazi Jews in the RjF. Presumably the group was mostly European/German Jews but I wonder if there were other ethic Jewish groups in the group or if they would been welcome?

Tone and Balance:

-The tone feels neutral, and the added content does not seem biased to a particular party.

-No one viewpoint feels overrepresented, and the content does not attempt to persuade the reader one way or another.

Sources:

-All of the information in the article is attributed to reliable sources.

-The only comment I would make is that there are only 8 sources, so it might strengthen the article to find a few more sources and add some different perspectives and more nuance.

Organization:

-Content is overall well-written, but the article is a bit repetitive and could be made more concise

-Standardized the capitalization and spelling of words like "Jew," "Nazi," and "antisemitism," "veteran," "zionist," and "nationalist" throughout the article, otherwise spelling and mechanics looks good

-Section division is clear and makes sense regarding the topics

Images:

-The first image, I would say, is neutral and doesn't really add or subtract from the article, but if you could find a better or more related one, I would

-The second image I like a lot more, although a translation of the German would be great!

-The captions of the images could be improved, more context/ translations would be helpful and make the images more meaningful and add more to the article.

Overall:

-I think the article is in a pretty good place. I think it would be improved by tightening up the prose and adding a few more sources, lengthening the final section, and adding more compelling images. The information there is interesting and accurate but could be delivered in a slightly more polished article.