| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The contents of the Draft:Najwa Zebian page were merged into Najwa Zebian on 15 December 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
Peer Review #1
editWikipedia peer-reviewing
Five elements of a Wikipedia article I will be paying attention to are: A lead section that is easy to understand A clear structure Balanced coverage Neutral content Reliable sources Lead
looking for: The lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
Create a Lead for the article, I would ask Prof. to explain in detail what he needs for a sound lead.
Structure Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? For what you have right now it seems like this is fine, I understand it is a work in progress.
Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Is the article clearly written?
Balance/Neutrality
Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
Sourcing This area could use some improvement. I understand it is a work in progress. I myself are inserting them in my wikipedia
Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! Are sources properly cited?
Peer review format: First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!
Be sure to add the title of the two articles you’ve reviewed to our WikiEd dashboard!
Peer Review #2
editLead - I think the introduction is functioning as the lead in this case. The intro is clear and concise, and it indicates why the topic is notable and important. It reflects the most important information so far. The only thing I would say would be to move it to the lead position and delete the introduction heading.
Structure - The article is structured in a way that makes sense. Nothing seems off-topic. The structure is very good.
Balance/Neutrality - For the most part it seems balanced and neutral. The only thing that stood out to me as less neutral was the sentence or two on how she was bullied.
Sourcing- No sources yet.
The article is really good so far. I hope that you expand the life and background section, because that part is very interesting. There are a couple of places where I feel like more information could be added. For example, in the first paragraph of the life and background section, you mention that she stopped her writing journey because of her experiences, but how long was she writing before she stopped? What had she written up to that point? All in all though, the article is good, and you've left yourself a really good segue into the career section. Nice job!