User:Reshmijpatel6/User:Marthasjones/sandbox/Samantha Gould 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

• Reviewing draft by: Marthasjones
• Draft: User:Marthasjones/sandbox (Frances Harriet Williams)

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

I think the lead effectively introduces Frances Harriet Williams and reflects the content in the rest of the article. The introductory sentence is effective and concise, though it might be beneficial to reference her work in the federal government in the first sentence, if possible. Though there isn't a brief description of the article's major sections, I don't think it is a problem; the sections follow intuitively from the lead and the fact that it is a biographical entry. Overall, I think the lead effectively introduces the entry.

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

I think all the content written so far is relevant to the topic and interesting. If possible, I think it would be helpful to have a bit more information about Williams' thesis and how she transitioned from studying chemistry and economics to sociology and political science. Are there any sources that describe how her career plans might have changed between undergrad and graduate school?

I'm assuming that you plan on expanding the sections on her work as an organizer and federal employee based on the notes below the early life section. Since I am not familiar with most of the items in the current list (the Price Administration and the Armenia Conference, for example), I think it would be helpful in the final article to at least link to the Wikipedia pages for those groups/events and also to give a bit of background information in the text of the article, if possible. I'm curious to learn more about her work in the final article!

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 appears neutral to me, especially since most of the information is strictly biographical. I was curious, though, about the section where you write that "the University of Cincinnati ... was not a good fit." Without a citation or a nod to a source, this phrase can read like your judgement about her decision to transfer, rather than a judgement made by her or her family contemporaneously. Adding a footnote or clarifying who judged it to be a bad fit would help clarify this.

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 draft is pretty light on citations right now, but I assume that you are planning on adding more before publishing the page. I couldn't find the bibliography associated with this draft, so I'm not sure what sources you are planning to reference.

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

I found the content was clear and concise. I think the sections provide a helpful and intuitive organization for the article. I didn't see any typos.

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 isn't any media added.

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

Without access to the full list of sources I assume you're drawing on, it's difficult to say whether the Notability requirements have been met, though I assume they are. The organization and flow of the article matches other biographical articles, and the article does link to other articles so it will be discoverable, so I think this will be a successful new article.

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

I think this is a strong beginning to a new article. It is clear, concise, and provides interesting and relevant information about Williams' life. I'm interested to read it once the section on her later life is complete, because it seems like Williams had a wide ranging and interesting career.