User:Cnboyack/History of Slavery in Oklahoma/Banjo2018 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? Cnboyack
- Link to draft you're reviewing: History of Slavery in Oklahoma
Lead
[edit]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
[edit]The Lead does a good job of presenting what is going to be included in the Article. It doesn't present any additional info beyond what's been included so far in the article. The Lead doesn't include anything about the Tulsa Race Riots. This seems like a substantial part of the article, something about it should be mentioned.
Content
[edit]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?
Content evaluation
[edit]Most of the content is relevant to the topic. The Tulsa Race Riots seems to be a little off subject from the overall topic, since it's concerning Slavery in Oklahoma. It's compelling information but feels somewhat out of place or beyond the scope of the article. The article does a great job of presenting material on Slavery and Native Americans involvement which helps with Wikipedia's equity gap.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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
[edit]The tone of the article is very good. It remains neutral throughout each section. I couldn't find any claims that are heavily biased.
Sources and References
[edit]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?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The content has good backing material, I saw a few books from university presses which are very reliable. The oldest source is from 1969, but mostly from the 2000's on up, so the sources are current. 4/4 of the sources links worked that I checked. Great job on the sources.
Organization
[edit]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
[edit]The content is organized in a great way. It's essentially chronologically presented which is very helpful for the reader. I would make sure to go through and read each paragraph out loud. There are a few sentences that are quite wordy or can be more clearly written. This sentence in the intro is an example, "With the ending of the Civil War the ending of slavery in the area which would become Oklahoma came with it". I get what is being said, but this is a rough sentence.
Images and Media
[edit]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
[edit]I checked all the photos and they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are helpful, especially the one about Native/Oklahoma territory. The pictures are placed in appropriate places. Looks like any other official wikipedia page.
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]There are 11 different sources used already and the article isn't finished so it has a good list of sources to represent the literature available. I saw 3 books from university presses so it meets the Notability requirement. The article does a great job of linking to other articles already, this will help make it much more discoverable.
Overall impressions
[edit]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
[edit]Overall this article is off to a great start. It looks like a professional wikipedia page and has a great list of sources and content so far. The main work that needs to be improved is mainly just grammatically. This is an easy fix reading aloud and going back through to correct errors. After the rest of the material and sources are added the article will be in great shape!