User:Nestorthemidwaycat/Madame de Brinvilliers/Alank202 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?
  • Nestorthemidwaycat
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Nestorthemidwaycat/Madame de Brinvilliers

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes! It's been expanded nicely to cover the additions so far.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, it sets up nicely for a biographical page.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The Lead covers most of the articles sections, but it might be improved by including mention of the "Fictional Portrayals" section if it's going to stay.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, it sticks to what appears later.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The Lead seems to be adequately detailed.

Lead evaluation

The lead seems pretty darn good! The only thing I can think to add is some reference to the fictional portrayals section.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Absolutely.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • As up-to-date as an article about a 17th Century aristocrat can be!
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • It looks like the section on her crimes is in progress, so it might be considered missing for now.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • I think so! It's about the life of a woman in the 17th Century.

Content evaluation

The content looks pretty good so far! The crimes section obviously is still being reworked, but I think that what's already there seems good!

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes. It deals with the life of the Marquise very objectively.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, what I see doesn't seem to deal with anything particularly controversial so far so as to be biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Not really, the opinions of the various people in her life seem to be evenly represented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No.

Tone and balance evaluation

It seems pretty good to me! What's been added so far looks nicely neutral. Maybe when it comes to covering her arrest up to her execution it will be necessary to look at it from both her perspective and an external/legal perspective.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, each paragraph appears to be backed up with a new source.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • As far as I know, the sources appear to cover all facets of the topic that would show up in the literature.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, the sources come from a variety of times with one even being as recent as 2012!
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes, there's at least one source by a woman.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes! They successsfully redirected me to readers for the sources.

Sources and references evaluation

They look pretty good! I think they look like they offer a wide variety of information worth putting in.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, it reads clearly and much like other good articles.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I never noticed any.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes. The sections make sense and flow nicely between each other.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

I don't see any added 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

The already existing images look pretty good. The only thing I could think to search for is maybe her lover or husband.

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?
  • Definitely! The article now is much more about the person for which it is titled and gives much more of an understanding of her circumstances.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The additions so far really nicely gives the necessary background to understand her crimes.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The major thing that seems to be still going is the section on her crimes and maybe the odd detail or image.

Overall evaluation

This draft looks good! It looks like you know where you're going so I'd recommend just continuing to add to it!