User:Epickerill/Ivy League/Jalencjones 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

Whose work are you reviewing?

Epickerill

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Epickerill/Ivy_League?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Ivy League

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - It looks as a new lead has not been added to the article yet but probably will once the article is completely finished. I would make sure to include an updated aspect in the lead of the changes added into the article.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic? - The topic of racial segregation in the past is relevant to the topic of the history of the Ivy-League. I see multiple sections that explain racial segregation in different centuries. I would also focus on explaining in more depth of racist policies that some Ivy League schools had in place that causes segregation in the school system.

Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, the information comes from sources that were present in that specific time period and also most of the sources are from articles and pages that were published in the 21st century.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I would possibly remove some of the information from the 20th and 21st century sections and make a new section on how the Ivy Leagues are working to removing racial segregation in their schools.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Not all information is backed up by information. Example below:

- "Many of the Ivy Leagues had admitted few students of color, with Black students being admitted as early as 1808 and as late as 1949. Most Ivy Leagues - such as Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, and University of Pennsylvania, had accepted their Black students in the latter decades of the 19th century." (I would add a citation here since dates are inserted and a claim is being made)

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, it is easy to read but there are some sentences that could be changed to sound more fluent.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - Below are some suggesting I have for editing:

- "Accepting Black students become more common after World War I and World War for Princeton and Columbia. " - Change become to became. I am also confused on the information present in the second half of the sentence. Are there missing words?

-"In fact, more Black students were attending in the elite graduate and professional schools compared to the undergraduate programs. By the middle of the 20th century, only 54 Black Men and Woman..." (remove "in" and Women not woman)

-Capitalize Black is many sentences

Overall Impressions

I would say overall that the information provided has improved the quality of the article since It provided important information on an aspect of Ivy League schools that was unrepresented on the page. A strength of the content added was the use of different types of sources from different time periods to backup the information provided in the added section. One way to improve the content added is to just reread what was written to see what grammatical and structural errr need to be changed so that the work added could be more correct.

~~~~ Jalen Jones