User:Lilybillow/Mandala/Josephrkopta 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

Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Lilybillow

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lilybillow/Mandala
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Mandala

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

You might update the lead to refer to the fact that mandalas are both conceptual and artistic/architectural, i.e. taking multiple forms. I don't think you necessarily need to mention your new section in the lead.

Content

Your new section looks good. Did you also want to update the architecture subsection? I think we mentioned during our research appointment the Great Stupa of Sanchi and Borobudur.

You should post on the talk page of Mandala a short introduction to who you are and what your proposed modification is. You'll probably get feedback within a day or two! (Check out Jillian's comments on the Talk:Shinto shrine, and the response she got.)

Remember to link words or phrases to existing Wikipedia articles!

Sources

By far, my greatest concern at the moment is that your new section only incorporates one museum video from the Wellcome Collection and the Rubin Museum. While this is a good start, you should consult scholarly publications as well (the mandala article overall is in need of these).

On July 8, 2021, I left the following message for you on User_talk:Lilybillow/Mandala:

Hey there! After our conversation today, I thought of a couple of resources that might be useful. All of these are available via the library digitally, or are open access on external websites.
One additional place to find some start info could be here: Matthew T. Kapstein, Tibetan Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Mandalas are mentioned several times (not necessarily sand mandalas), but the religious background could be useful.
In addition to the Rubin Museum of Art, check out also the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Collection Database for mandala and the Timeline of Art History.
A colleague suggested this book: Alex Wayman, The Buddhist Tantras: Light on Indo-Tibetan Esotericism (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990).
For sand mandalas specifically, this looks like a good resource in English: Barry Bryant, The wheel of time sand mandala: visual scripture of Tibetan Buddhism (San Francisco: Harper, 1992).
There is a 26-minute documentary from 2002 about the production of sand mandalas titled “Sand painting: sacred art of Tibet.” You have access to this via Temple Libraries (sign in using your ID).
For the architecture section, it might help to include a few concrete examples. The ones that I can think of are Borobudur on Java and the stupa (the famous one is the Great Stupa at Sanchi).
Look on Oxford Art Online for short entries on Borobudur or the Great Stupa.

Organization

At the moment, I'm not sure if the way the entire article is optimally organized. This is probably not something that you should go in and completely reorganize, but you might want to ask or suggest how the article overall might better be organized on the Talk page. Also, it seems as if mandala is being defined and applied in multiple different ways (i.e., is this the proper page to put Mesoamerican calendars?)

Images

Down the line, you might incorporate an image or two: 1. of a sand mandala; 2. of architecture; 3. a diagram of what the elements in a mandala represent. The inserting images and media training module will help you with this.