User talk:Zanickaa/Shrine of The Three Kings

ART105 Peer Review

Hello! Great job on your article so far! I have a few suggestions to make based on the Wikipedia peer review training module:

I.                   Lead Section/Into:

-         The lead section accurately represents the importance of the topic, is not redundant, and it does not give more weight to certain parts of the article than others, great job!

-         This lead section appears to be formatted as part of the Section Heading rather than part of the body, which is why the font is so large. This goes against Wikipedia editing guidelines, but you can easily fix this by highlighting the lead section text in edit mode and selecting “Paragraph” from the drop-down menu instead of “Heading.”

II.                Article Structure

-         I have three small suggestions about the structure of your article:

o  1: I think that the information in the “Security of the Shrine” section of your article should be moved into the “Historical Context section. You could also rename the section “History” instead of “Historical Context.”

o  2: I think that the section about the 3 Magi should come after the History/Historical Context section.

o  3: In the “Identity of the Three Magi” section, I don’t think it is necessary to create different subsections to describe each King. I think that this section would be smoother if you removed the sub-sections for each king and just wrote a sentence or two describing each king within the main “Identity of the Three Magi” section.

-         Other than these three suggestions, I think the structure of your article looks great!

III.             Coverage

-         Overall, I think that this article provides fairly balanced coverage of the topic at hand and is not biased in any way. However, I do think that some sections need more content and details, especially the Historical Context section (since this is one of the most important sections in the article).

IV.             Content

-         All of the content seems reliable and accurately represented.

V.               Sources

-         All of the sources cited in the article are reliable scholarly sources. However, it appears that all of these citations were already in the original article. None of the new information that you have added includes a citation. Make sure to go back and add a citation to the sentences you added. (For example, nothing in the “Historical Context” section has a citation, and since it is not common knowledge it needs a citation).

Again, great job so far! I hope that this peer review is useful to you. Rocky70091 (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)