User:Hcooper799/Naomi Chapman Woodruff/Klcrawford2021 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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

(Hcooper799)

Link to draft you're reviewing
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Naomi Chapman Woodruff

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Hi Hannah! Here's my peer review for you,

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes it is. The content is appropriate and fits within the standards of Wikipedia.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Further details of her death would be a nice addition (if available) to the Death section of the article.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral? - Yes the tone seems to be neutral. I'm not sure if quotes from family are relevant, but that could possibly be seen as "biased."

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - I find the sourcing part to be the hardest thing and can't say that I really know what I'm talking about here, but I see that there is a flag on the article saying that the content may be deleted if more sourcing is not added... so this might be something to focus on. I would provide more reliable references as soon as possible.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? To my knowledge your sources seem to be appropriate and you are representing them well in the context of the article.
Are the sources current? - One of them is from 2003 I believe so I would consider that "current." The other two are questionable depending on your idea of "current."

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clear, but could be given better wording to add to the readability, such as changing "She was instrumental to the development... to "She was instrumental in the development."
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I could not find any spelling or grammatical errors, though this is not my strong suit.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the sectioning is well done and you seem to have given even weight to each section.

Overall impressions

What are the strengths of the content added? The content is typical of what any other bibliography would include and you're at a good starting point. I think adding a little more information to each section will give the article a fuller feel, obviously that is if you can find more information to supplement with.