User:KaiAbiola/Vivian Malone Jones/Aarukrish Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• KaiAbiola
• Link to draft

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?

Lead evaluation

Lead is relevant and addresses relevant points. A sentence can be added about her life after college, and her involvement in the civil rights movement. It is not overly-detailed, and it concise.

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?

Content evaluation

Content is relevant. It might be interesting to add an 'influence' passage, and talk about the effects of her actions and relevant moments in contemporary times that mirror her struggle. There doesn't seem to be any information that doesn't belong, and it definitely addresses a topic related to a historically underrepresented population.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

Content is neutral, and does not attempt to sway the reader to any viewpoint.

Though the section on her experiences in college are definitely relevant, it takes up far too much of the article's body and is out of proportion to the rest of the article- either the section must be shaved down by removing unnecessary information, or the rest of the passage must be bulked up by adding more text.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

All content is backed up, sources seem thorough and current. Though sources don't seem to be by a diverse spectrum of authors, all links 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?

Organization evaluation

Content is concise and clear, with no grammatical errors. Content is well-organized.

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?

Images and media evaluation

Image is relevant and enhances understanding of the topic. Image is well captioned, adheres to copyright regulations, and is laid out appealingly.

For New Articles Only

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?

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?

Overall evaluation

Content definitely makes the article more complete, by adding text about Jone's later life and her personal life, both important, relevant topics. Content can be improved by perhaps adding more citations where necessary.