User:Tatazaifendou/Race Betterment Foundation/Anchordown1998 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? Tatazaifendou
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tatazaifendou/Race Betterment Foundation#National Conferences on Race Betterment

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence for your article was concisely written.Your leading sentence addressed the 4 major W's (Who? What? Where? When? Why?). The only critique that I would have is your use of the term "hygiene" as a stand-alone. I think the phrase "racial hygiene" might be better (because I was initially confused), but I understand not wanting to become too redundant with phrasing/terms.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it does. You did a fantastic job at structuring your article and referencing the major components in your lead. I will say that you mentioned a college in your lead section that was not addressed in the article. I'm not sure if you will keep that in or not, but if you decide it's important to keep, I'm sure that it could fit in the "Other Related Work" section.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Everything that you've written thus far (minus the college bit) is included in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is succinct and to the point. I would maybe consider adding a bit more detail (like a short identifying phrase for Kellogg.

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

I believe that all of the major topics that you mentioned (i.e. the founding members, the national conferences, and the other related works) have a "home" in this article, but I do think that there are some details that can be left out. I'm mainly referring to the "Founding Members" section of the article. For example, you included the birth and death dates for each founding member, but those dates are not necessarily important for the overall topic of the Race Betterment Foundation. Perhaps adding the dates of the years served in their (respective) positions would be better. Additionally, you mentioned a lot of details about Kellogg that aren't directly related to the issue of the foundation, like his stances on temperance, purity, etc. Unless his stances on those topics influenced the foundation in some way, I think leaving them out or replacing them with more historical information (about his time as founder) would be better.

Additionally, I think that clarifying what certain topics are (like the Panama Pacific Exposition) in just a sentence or two before relating those topics back to your topic (i.e. Race Betterment Foundation) could help strengthen your article. Sometimes, I found myself getting lost on why certain things were being brought up and how those things connected back to the subject. For the Panama Pacific Exposition, you mention the "acceleration of all that the New World had to offer" but how does "race betterment" fit into that discussion? At least from the perspectives of what Kellogg and company?

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

The content balance and tone you adopt throughout the article are great. I have no critiques here. Each section visually looks balanced. You added equal amounts of information for each subheading which gives the reader the impression that the topic of each sub-header is equally important (which I like). You also successfully connected the historical significance of eugenics to your topic without seeming to take a stance on the issue itself.

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

I did not look closely at all of your sources, but I did review a few of them. None of the sources that I looked at seemed suspicious in any way. There is a steady presence of reference links throughout your actual writing/article as well. I did notice that the "Panama Pacific Exposition" section only contained one in-text citation (it was placed at the end of the second paragraph), but I am guessing that this is because all of the information came from that same source. Other than that, everything else looked fine. You have an extensive list of sources providing information about all of your subtopics, so that is good!

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

Aesthetically, I found your article very pleasing. Just from the way your organized your sections, I gained a sense of what the foundation was about. Additionally, all of this information was clearly mentioned in your lead which helps connect the article overall. There are some grammatical issues laced throughout the article. Some are fairly minor (for example, I think you left the "he" out of the last sentence of the "Charles Benedict Davenport" section, you misspelled campaign in the "Fitter Families Campaign" header). Some are a little larger and require some sentence restructuring (for example, the first sentence of the "Panama Pacific Exposition" section); however, I'm sure you're aware of those things and planning to refine them over time.

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

I loved the two images you included. They enhance the article by making the topics seem more "real." I doubt anyone would know what a eugenic registration document looked like, so the images kind of give a "face" to history if you will. I checked the licenses of the two images (per Wiki's suggestion), and they are from a free media repository. So no issue of copyright, great! They are also situated right beside their respective sections, so their layout on the wiki looks nice as well.

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, I think this is a great start to the article. You've already enhanced the accessibility/depth of knowledge on Wikipedia simply by choosing a topic that previously did not exist. I can tell that you've put a lot of thought into the organization of your article and also into what elements you think are the most important to address. I'm excited to see how you progress it. In terms of improvement, I'll talk more of the things you requested that didn't directly fit into the Peer Review guide.

Proper Contents? Added or Deleted: I think that everything that you have included thus far does belong in the article; however, I think that it's more of a question of "Do I have the time to tell each part of this story properly and thoroughly? Can I give it justice?" Some parts seem rushed and like information is lacking (like the "Afterwards" section, and some parts are hard to connect overall to the Race Betterment Foundation (like the Panama Pacific Exposition). From taking this class, I completely understand why you included these things, but if I was just a random person browsing wiki, I'm not sure I would immediately make the connections.