User:Hannah Florez/CONAVIGUA/Micheller12 Peer Review

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, the lead has been updated.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the introductory sentences clearly states who their focus is on, what the acronym stands for, who it is led by, where it is based and what their goals are. I think the introductory sentence just lacks a date of when CONAVIGUA was founded.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead does seem to have a brief description for some of the major sections. It does introduce the sections, "Origins on the Conflict that Created the CONAVIGUA" and "Mission, Goals, and What They Were Fighting For." But i think these sections should be talked about a bit more in the Lead. The other sections I think aren't really mentioned.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The lead does a good job in only mentioning information that is later talked about in greater detail throughout the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • I think the lead lacks a more information in regards to briefly introducing the major sections. There is also some transitionary words and other words that could be erased to make the lead seem more detailed and straightforward. One example can be found in the last sentence the transition "overall" can be removed to make the lead more straightforward.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content is all relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • The content is up-to-date. It covers events that have occurred since the creation of CONAVIGUA up until more recent events from 2019.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • All content seems to belong.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • The article does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations, and so I believe it does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • All of the content seems to be neutral. There is no evident biased vocabulary.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The only thing I would add or mention is in the section, "Mission, Goals, and What They Were Fighting For," in this section it is mentioned that CONAVIGUA has been "a crucial player" and "integral in shaping...Guatemalan society and the government." I understand that their role was really important but to others i think this might seem biased, from the point of view of someone who doesn't know a lot about Guatemala and its organizations it might seem like CONAVIGUA where the only ones who caused a change in the government and Guatemala as a whole. Maybe you can mention other people or groups/ organizations that also played a crucial role, just to acknowledge it wasn't just CONAVIGUA,
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • I know that Rosalina Tuyuc is the founder but I think there should also be a section for other foundational members. I only bring this up because in other sections other members are mentioned. Maybe there could be a section for the members that were killed, to really honor their sacrifices. I do notice that you mentioned their sacrifices, but maybe it can be its own section.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The content is pretty much entirely fact and historical information. There is not much bias within the article.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • The content is backed by reliable sources, there is a good amount of sources and it varies from news articles, journal articles, and from the very organization's website.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
  • Yes, the sources are being used properly, all the information is coming from these sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes they are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic
• Are the sources current?
  • Although some are dated they are understandable because they speak about the foundations/ what led to CONAVIGUA. The rest are pretty up to date and current.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes, the authors of the sources are pretty diverse. Some are scholars, some are editors of the organizations website, some are interviews meaning they offer opinions of the organizations members.
• 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.)
  • I think all the sources available are pretty diverse and well rounded.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, they work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, it is well written, it is very easy to understand.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • There seems to be hardly to none grammatical errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes it is organized, like the organization of the sections. It is kind of a timeline, starting with their origins to their legacy.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • There is one image, the image of Rosalina Tuyuc, the founder of CONAVIGUA. It does enhance understanding because it is nice to put a face to a name.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • I would say it is well captioned since the image is of a person and the caption states who it is. If you were think to above and beyond it might help if the caption mentioned when and where the image was taken.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Perhaps not since it doesn't mention who took the picture.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes, since its included in the section where she is the focus.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • I think the additions are very good, I think by looking at the view history, there was nothing at all on CONAVIGUA.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • I think the strengths are that the sections are pretty well ordered. It also clearly mentions the goals and hardships of CONAVIGUA.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • I think there could be more introduction for all the sections in the lead. There should also be a mention that CONAVIGUA did help a lot but they werent the only factor in the betterment of Guatemala. I think the caption of the image should mention who took the picture.

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

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Hannah Florez

Link to draft you're reviewing

CONAVIGUA

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)