User:De.small1/Alicia Garza/Piepe074 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? (De.small1, Will5590, LukieW, Viki.vick)
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Alicia Garza
Lead
[edit]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? Yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise
Lead evaluation: there are topic in the lead that are not covered within the article itself, namely Alicia Garza organization around rights for domestic workers and violence against trans and gender-nonconforming people of color. I realize that my peers are not the ones adding this information, but it is left out of the article.
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? For the most part.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes
Content evaluation: I'm not sure if the 2016 Presidential Race section is necessary, I don't see how it relates to her activism.
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? For the most part
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I can see
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Tone and balance evaluation: " Alongside her desire for reproductive equality, Garza considered herself a queer social justice activist and a Marxist." This sentence feels too much like an opinion, or too heavily opinion based. I'm not sure how to fix it though.
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? From what I could tell
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
- Are the sources current? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the do
Sources and references evaluation: didn't find any issues here.
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes
Organization evaluation: the only thing that caught me up when I was reading through was the line "She has organized around the issues …", otherwise everything else seamed very concise and clear.
[edit]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: my peers didn't add any images so this section doesn't apply to them.
[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: not a new article, so it doesn't apply.
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]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?
- How can the content added be improved?