User:Reshmijpatel6/User:Marthasjones/sandbox/Cjung10 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? Marthasjones
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Marthasjones/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

The Lead section is concise, well-summarized, and provides an overview that hits on the main sections of the article (YWCA, NAACP). There are a couple sections that aren't mentioned such as Williams' later years on the St. Louis Board of Education and her publications. One suggestion could be to add a statement about those aspects in the Lead.

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 is relevant and a strength is the "Early Life" section. From the section headings, there will be extensive coverage on Williams' professional life, so that content will not be missing.

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

The content is neutral and there are no claims that appear heavily biased. As of now, there are no citations to the statements, so that is a suggestion of improvement to the article's tone and balance.

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

The link to the source works and it is current and reliable. A suggestion will be to include more sources from a variety of publication dates and types (online/print), but I recognize that this is a first draft.

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

Yes, from the section headings and chronological order of the information, the content appears well-organized. No suggestion here.

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?

Images and media evaluation

There are no images or media to evaluate right now. One suggestion for improvement would be to add a relevant image if there are no copyright issues.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

New Article Evaluation

The article does not yet meet the notability requirement of having 3 secondary sources independent of the subject. Adding to the list of sources is the main area of improvement. But based on the content and patterning of the article, the information presents a notable life and career. The article follows other Wikipedia articles in terms of headings and other features such as a "Further readings/External links" section.

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

Overall, the article appears to be a great start. It is organized and well-written. Areas of improvement for the content is to add citations within the article to statements, and to include more sources overall.