User talk:Berezki
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Oklahoma/Japanese_Environmental_History_(Spring_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Berezki, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
James Review
[edit]General info Whose work are you reviewing? Berezki Link to draft you're reviewing: Lead Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it doesn't include the items listed in the article. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it mentions the Treaty of San Francisco. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? It is within the last 20 years. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The "Treaty Content" is missing.
Tone and Balance Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral? Yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No they are neutral. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The Japanese side isn't present in the Golovnin Incident. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.
Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I am not familiar with the field. Are the sources current? Yrs, within 20 years. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do.
Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is well written and is easily understood in the larger context of the article. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but only two fields. It feels like there should be more.
Organization evaluation New Article Evaluation Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it has added some background information. What are the strengths of the content added? Background. How can the content added be improved? More discussion of the Japanese view. More discussion of the repercussions. Overall evaluation: It is a good addition! It short, though and feels like more could be added in after the Treaty. Also with the Japanese perspective. I am sure more will be added in the future. Good additions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamespgj (talk • contribs) 18:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)