User:Reshmijpatel6/User:Marthasjones/sandbox/Aryellezabala 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 (article: "Frances Harriet Williams")
• 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? Yes.
• 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? It only discusses the major points of Frances Harriet Williams' career and doesn't mention her early or later life. I think this is okay because the main points of the article are the impacts that she made in her career?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not all of the sections are complete yet, but they are set up in a way that makes me assume that all of the information mentioned in the Lead will be covered at some point in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? I assume so? The sources are not listed yet so hard to tell.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Many sections incomplete but so far, all the information seems to fit into/belong in Frances Harriet Williams' life narrative

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, since the article is more about presenting the facts of Frances Harriet Williams' life, and not the author's opinion of her.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, the sources have not been added yet (only 1 has).
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? N/A
• Are the sources current? N/A
• Check a few links. Do they work? N/A

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is written very nicely.
• 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, although I think that all of the sections from "YMCA Organizer" to "Truman Presidency" could be lumped under one category/section entitled "Career".

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, but images of Frances Harriet Williams and some action shots of her in the various activities she was involved in during her career (eg. YMCA organizer, NAACP leader, staff member of U.S. Senator Herbert H. Lehman) would be a great addition to the article.
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? I think so, although not all of the sources are listed yet.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not listed yet.
• 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? It contains the necessary section headings, but the infobox has not been made yet.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
• What are the strengths of the content added? All of the content added here is new and sheds some much-needed light on the life and accomplishments of Frances Harriet Williams.
• How can the content added be improved? What is here so far is good - provides good information that is not too detailed. I can't wait to read what you have in store for the other sections! One suggestion I would have is to add a "Memory/Legacy" section or something like it to discuss the impact that Frances Harriet Williams' life and accomplishments had on society, even after her death (if you have the information).