User:Rodriguesca/Charles A. Cofield/Nezow 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? Rodriguesca
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rodriguesca/Charles A. Cofield

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

The structure of the first sentence in the lead is slightly difficult to follow, it might be made clearer by breaking up the two points. i.e. "Charles Cofield was the first quadriplegic graduate student at MIT's School of Architecture, where he completed a Bachelor of Science in Architecture in 1972, a Master of Architecture in 1973, and a Master in City Planning in 1974."

Apart from mentioning how Cofield was the "first quadriplegic" in the many institutions and organizations he was a part of, it would be useful to mention his contributions as well, such as his introduction of disabled access to both MIT and UCLA, as well as his pioneering in the Disability Movements in Massachusetts and Los Angeles, and that he worked as the Director of the City of Los Angeles Housing Authority for 24 years. See https://www.blackhistory.mit.edu/archive/charles-cofield-1970s and the Profile Page for Charles A. Cofield in the drive, for more information.

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?

Content evaluation

Currently this article only has a lead, no section headers yet. If interested in expanding this article, you can find more detailed information about Cofield's Life, Education and Career from the Profile Page in the Drive.

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

Tone is neutral and balanced.

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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

We are still waiting for access to Cofield's autobiography book, but in the meantime, this link leads to a promotional/summary video of the book, which can be added to the sources as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=aLfMgFMM7dw&feature=emb_logo.

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 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

Overall, the content is well-written, though it could seek to benefit from more information from the autobiography book that we are awaiting access to.