User:Aarukrish/Phoebe Couzins/KaiAbiola Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Aarukrish
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Phoebe Couzins

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
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise

Lead evaluation

You did a really great job with your lead. There was a nice balance of what was to be included in later sections, and your sentences were clear and concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, particularly the content added about her involvement in the Suffrage Movement
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Yes, it focuses on an individual who was not extremely well-known in the Suffrage Movement

Content evaluation

I think the content you added about her involvement in both the suffrage and anti-suffrage movement was a meaningful contribution. It made her story more complete, and I got a more full picture of who she was. All the content that has been added seems to be up-to-date and enhances her page.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, everything seems really balanced
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Tone and balance evaluation

You were able to maintain a neutral tone throughout, which can be tricky when it comes to editing and writing for Wikipedia. In addition, you did a great job of maintaining balance among the sections so that no one section overpowered the rest.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, I also liked that all the sources were linkable
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes, as far as I can tell
• Are the sources current?
  • Most of the sources seem rooted in the past, but they seem to be relatively encompassing of Couzins life
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes, it seems that way
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, all the links I checked work

Sources and references evaluation

Your sources look good, and almost everything you added was cited. It may be good to see where you may be able to add more citations to parts you added. Also, it seemed like most of the sources were not super recent, but I think they did a great job of guiding you through your contributions.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes

Organization evaluation

Your contributions are clear and concise and relatively easy to read. Also, I think you did a really great job with section breakdown, especially when adding new sections. All in all, her site is organized in a way that is both interesting but also easy to comprehend.

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?
• 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?
  • Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • I think the biggest strength was the contribution you made about the suffrage movement and the anti-suffrage movement. I could tell you were knowledgeable about the content you added, and you were still able to maintain a neutral tone, which was fantastic.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • My biggest recommendation would be to see if within the next few years more sources are published that include Phoebe Couzins as I think it may be interesting to see what a more modern take on her life and accolades would look like. Also, if there are any opportunities for you to add more pictures in the future, I think that would be excellent.

Overall evaluation

Really great job, Aarushi! Your contributions to Couzins page were really meaningful, and they made me want to learn more about her. You not only truly made her page more complete but also you enhanced her page in new and exciting ways. All in all, excellent job!