User:Kardon99/Columbus Quincentenary/Miaonl 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

• Whose work are you reviewing?
  • Kardon99
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Kardon99/Columbus Quincentenary

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The article is a new article, so N/A. However, the lead does reflect the content o the article.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the first sentence briefly defines the topic, the Columbus quincentenary.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes, the lead introduces all sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The lead mentions the creation of Indigenous Peoples' Day in 1989 but the section does not mention it.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead could be a bit shorter, in my opinion. The prose reads much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. For example, this sentence: "Ultimately, the Columbus Quincentenary was a focal point in history where competing narratives on European exploration and indigenous rights abuses tremendously diverged." That sentence is editorializing and also a synthesis/conclusion that is not necessary for an article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, the content is up to date
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I think the content is includes content that addresses the topic fairly completely. However, I think that the opposition protest sections can be expanded. The celebrations part seems complete, but I feel like the protests part needs more. The shifting narratives section is unnecessary in my opinion, except maybe the counter-commemorative pedagogy part if revised. The section is editorializing and is more of a synthesis of information and a conclusion like in an essay rather than a section in an encyclopedia article. In addition to this section, several sentences of the article also are written in an essay style rather than an article, as I pointed out in the lead section. For example phrases like "thus," "it becomes evident that," "however," etc. The Indigenous Peoples' Day subsection needs more background as well.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Yes, the article addresses a topic related to historically underrepresented populations. It shows the indigenous opposition to the celebration of Columbus.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content is neutral until the final section. The shifting narratives section does not really take a stance, but it does push a narrative. It argues that the quincentenary was a turning point in mainstream opinion of Columbus, argued with evidence. However, Wiki articles should not have an argument.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • "The clash between cultural conservatism and deep-rooted resistance on this anniversary called for a reexamination of the dominant pedagogy that teaches Columbus as a father of discovery and Western development." This seems to be the argument of the article.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The pro and anti Columbus viewpoints are balanced.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • I do not think the article attempts to persuade the reader in favor of Columbus or against, but it does try to make an argument.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Some parts of the article are not backed by citation. One example: "Alternatively, anti-celebration efforts emerged in America preceding the quincentenary. Indigenous Peoples' Day, a holiday honoring Native Americans and their presence in the Americas before 1492, was created in South Dakota in 1989 to coincide with Columbus Day on the second Monday of October. This trend is also seen in Latin America regarding Columbus-Day-like October 12 holidays." This part of the lead has not citation.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • There are many varied sources. There are scholarly articles, news articles, polling, etc. I would assume that there is more literature because it is a big topic, but the current sources are fairly thorough.
• Are the sources current?
  • No, almost all sources are old, but they are from the time of the quincentenary so it is okay.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes, the sources are written by diverse authors and include the perspectives of marginalized individuals.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The content is mostly well written, although I would repeat my concern that it is written as an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Some transitions were awkward and I would say most are unnecessary. It could be more concise, particularly by cutting those transitions and removing the editorial style parts.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I noticed one typo, Latin American when it should be Latin America. Most of the grammar seemed good to me, although again a couple of awkward transitions.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The organization is pretty good. The section title "Oppositional Celebrations" should probably be something else, like resistance instead of celebration.

Images and Media

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

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?
  • Yes, it meets significant coverage, reliable, secondary sources, independent of the subject, and presumed. There are more than 2-3 reliable secondary sources
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • Again, there are many varied sources. There are scholarly articles, news articles, polling, etc. I would assume that there is more literature because it is a big topic, but the current sources are fairly thorough.
• 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?
  • No, but I do not know if there need to be any inboxes and such.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • N/A (new article)
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The content provides a comprehensive overview of the events of the quincentenary. I like how it includes polling information, but I will say that the description of the polls is confusing and could be improved.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The article could be improved by removing or significantly changing the "shifting narratives" section. Also, the poll descriptions as I mentioned could use work. Like I mentioned before, the article could be more concise.