User:Zainabmojaddedi/Islam in Ethiopia/Ajhwik Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
• Zainabmojaddedi
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
• User:Zainabmojaddedi/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation

I don't know if you intend to use the first section as a lead, but it is a good introduction.

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?

Content evaluation

The content that you've added is relevant and helpful for the main article. I like that you are choosing to expand into new topics that were not addressed by the original article. You could maybe add a little bit of background about the Gojjam region for context.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

I think you keep the tone neutral. I think you could maybe include a little more background on the origin of the persecution enacted by polytheist extremists. Was it only because Muslims were monotheists or were there other political factors involved?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

It looks like the sources you used are solid and reputable. They also appear to be fairly current.

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?

Organization evaluation

I think the way that you break down the sections is good. The Background and Demographics section is a strong introduction to the topic. There are a few typos. I think that some of the sentences would also benefit from being broken down a little, especially in cases where you list different historical figures or eras.

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?

Overall evaluation

I think that you chose well in terms of what type of material to add to this article. Your organization and content is definitely an improvement on the current one. I especially like that you turned Land Rights into its own section. As I mentioned in previous sections, I think mainly that adding a bit of context about certain people/places/events would be helpful. But I also know that Wikipedia articles always include links for other topics that they mention so I am actually not sure how much context you should include if that is going to be part of the final article format.