User:Jugem Jugem 1945/Kat Calvin/Nicholas Rondan 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?

Anahi.0812, Crystat8462, DFloresVVC, Ewalker05

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:DFloresVVC/Kat Calvin
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Guiding questions:

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the lead does introduce the individual and gets straight to the point.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes it does.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Yes, the last sentence of the lead states Calvin's advocation for minority representation in the STEM field, but does not elaborate further on this subject through the rest of the article.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise, not adding too much information so that the article body sections can take center stage.

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content is relevant to the topic.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Some of the content in the draft is up-to-date while there are areas of a couple sources dating back to 2013.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes there is content missing. Specifically the areas of career and research, there are no dates posted so it makes it hard to follow the timeline of Calvin's career and research. Furthermore, her early life and education are lacking in specificity on what degree she has earned, as well as two sentences that start and end the same. "Calvin graduated from Mount Holyoke College in 2005. Calvin graduated from University of Michigan Law School in 2010."

Is the content added neutral?

The content added is neutral.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

While there aren't any extreme violations of bias, the ending sentence in the lead can appear biased based on phrasing. "Additionally, Calvin advocates for advanced minority representation in the STEM field." This sentence lacks clarity although it has two citations.

Are the sources current?

Many of the sources are from 10+ years ago.

Check a few links. Do they work?

The links do work, but there is one link that is added twice in the references section.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I only found two grammatical errors with two commas needing to be added here. Spread the Vote and Project ID, she lived in Seattle and Sierra Vista, AZ.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

In the first line of career and research, it states Calvin is an entrepreneur, author and activist, but it doesn't state specifically in what areas. What has she written? What is she an activist for?

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

There are 9 shown resources in your reference list for the draft, but one is added twice, meaning there are two unused sources from the bibliography not being utilized.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The strengths of the content added is it's clear statement in the lead, which is expanded upon in the career and research section.

How can the content added be improved?

The content can be improved by fixing a slight few grammatical errors, rephrasing of some sentences, adding more specifics into Calvin's career, education and activism stances, as well as more precise dates being included.

One thing I noticed is a slight repetition in phrasing from the two sentences of Calvin's importance of being a founder and co-founder of various areas of expertise. I think the strongest area is the career and research because it has the most information, but it does lack in specifics, such as a date timeline for multiple statements. Overall the article seems to have a neutral standpoint and remains unbiased.