User:Aarukrish/Phoebe Couzins/HollyLovesHistory Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? Aarukrish
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Phoebe Couzins (I cannot access the draft, so I will peer review the article itself if that's okay!)
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- N/A
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes. I also think the Lead could perhaps include more about her suffrage activism.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The Lead is concise.
Lead evaluation
[edit]I think the Lead is concise and well-written. I don't know much about Phoebe Couzins, but given that she was a suffrage activist, the Lead could perhaps include the fact that she was a suffragist.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- I believe so.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- I believe so.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Suffrage activism can be added, of course!
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- Yes, because the article details women's history.
Content evaluation
[edit]So far, the content is detailed, but I definitely think there is plenty of room to discuss suffrage activism.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No.
- 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.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article seems balanced and does not persuade the reader in any particular direction.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- N/A (I'm not sure which information is new)
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- I believe so.
- Are the sources current?
- For the most part, yes! Some sources are from the 1980s and 1990s, but I saw plenty of current sources. I was super excited to see a Newspapers.com article accessed in 2020!
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- I'm not entirely sure.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources are varied, which is great! They all seem reliable, and many are current. The links also seem to work.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes.
- 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.
Organization evaluation
[edit]The writing is very good, and contains no grammatical or spelling errors. The content is also well-organized, and I think the content could maybe be broken down even further.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- N/A
- 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
Images and media evaluation
[edit]For New Articles Only
[edit]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
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- I'm not sure which content you added, Aarushi, but I think the article is in great shape so far!
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- The content contains various facets of Couzins's life, and I like how the article details how Couzins was a lawyer, and then became a suffragist. I think this is an interesting transition that would be interesting to learn more about!
- How can the content added be improved?
- Perhaps you could include a separate section detailing her suffrage activism, if you are interested in doing so? Just a random suggestion! :)
Overall evaluation
[edit]So far, I think this article has great information. There are also plenty of opportunities to expand upon ideas and greater detail Couzins's involvement in the Suffrage Movement. I can't wait to see what else you can find out about Phoebe Couzins!