User:Hestera nmac3108/Draft:Edith Jacqueline Ingram Grant/C.pinkston 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? (provide username) Hestera nmac308's Ingram article
- Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Edith Jacqueline Ingram Grant
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 it is displayed in the "contents" tab.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything mentioned is followed up in the article and detailed upon.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and I do not foresee readers getting distracted or overwhelmed with information.
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead is good, the only tweaks that are needed is that we remove the citations from it and save it for the body content. I would also remove the "true pioneer" because we have to be careful about generalizations, not that she was not a pioneer or anything. If we had a direct quote from a named person, then we could say something to the tune of "John Doe heralded Ingram as a true pioneer".
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? The content is fairly up to date since one of the sources is from June 2020, it is up to date as far as we can get it considering the information reported.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything in the article belongs. There is no extraneous narration or empty phrasing that does not provide information.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it presents a woman of color and is aimed at reducing the amount of "women in red" on Wikipedia.
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is good. It follows events in order and does not create confusion with bits and pieces of information.
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 tone is neutral throughout and does not appear to critique or praise in any direct way.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All sources except for the WMAZ, WGXA, and Fort Valley sources are reliable. Although it would seem strange that these particular sources would have unreliable information, they do not have an author so they should not be used unfortunately.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
- Are the sources current? They are as current as we can get on the subject.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? While all the sources are from different people, I am not too sure if they historically marginalized individuals, but it should be fine regardless.
- Check a few links. Do they work? All the links work!
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources are as good as they can be with everything we have researched. I think we included everything reliable we could and extracted as much as possible. The works cited section itself could use some uniformity with the citation templates, it does not seem like the appearance drastically from it, but I am assuming it would be beneficial to the work and our grades. I asked on the Yancy talk page if there was anything that needs fixing template wise for this section since it seemed to change slightly, but have not received a response. So I'm still not 100% sure how to fix it, if needed. The only citation that needs change without question is the WMAZ article since it has the "ref={{sfnRef}}" at the end, but that is only if we keep the article at all.
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 except for "aide-de-camp" needs the hyphens in between (just learned this, I'll fix it). The website spelled it wrong so I understand why we got it wrong the first time.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the information within each topic fits well.
Organization evaluation
[edit]I think the organization fits well and the sentences work well together within each section. It also does not repeat the same sentence structure too much. In the "early life" section, we have 2 sentences that begin with after, changing that would improve the flow of reading.
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]This is something we have to look for on both articles, making sure it follows appropriate copyright laws and licenses, basically following the wiki tutorial. I hope to find portraits we can use of these women, I think it would make the most sense, instead of logos or buildings.
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? Yes
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
- 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? Yes
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes
New Article Evaluation
[edit]I think it has appropriate wiki links and categories to make it more discoverable. We could try to add external links at the bottom of both articles with some of the most useful sources we have.
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? It provides information in a concise way without unnecessary phrasing. I think it also follows the timeline well and her actions are not out of chronological order
- How can the content added be improved? We might be able to add some more personal life information from the history makers, just so that death is not the only thing in that category.
Overall evaluation
[edit]This article was tough to get all the information we did out of the sources we could find, but we made it work. I think the article is good and we have worked past a lot of the initial errors, so that now we can make tweaks, compared to rewriting the whole thing.