User:Aliciab5334/Regina Gwynn/Nicholas Rondan Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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 for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Aliciab5334, Eric godbout24, Hailey720

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Aliciab5334/Regina Gwynn
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

One thing I noticed quite early on is that the article starts off instantly stating what Regina Gwynn's career path has been, instead of introducing us to Regina. It doesn't necessarily say what Regina Gwynnn does or who she is initially, making it difficult to grasp what the article is trying to convey. There are two good paragraphs for the lead and article body, but they do need some reshaping in phrasing as it appears to be trying to convince the reader of Regina's accomplishments rather than stating what they are/were. For example, the sentence "Regina knew she wanted to run her own business like them someday" makes it seem like it is a persuasive sentence, and also makes it look like it comes from an unsourced piece of information. The lack of information of who Regina is in the beginning, is crucial in helping the reader understand her notability.

One thing to note is that there should be citations after every sentence. Even if the entire paragraph is only using one or two citations.

Furthermore, I've noticed there are eight sources in the bibliography but only four have been utilized in the draft. some notes in the lead paragraph can be changed to a Career & Education section while the lead can be summarized as who Regina is and what is she doing. It looks like you have the sources available in the bibliography, but without using them the article has many gaps in information that can be added to better support Regina's influence in her respective area.

The content added in the article body section is well written, but the beginning makes it sound like it is jumping off of the previous section. The previous Lead section ends with Regina's launch of Black Women Talk Tech in 2017, but the next section being the Article body starts off with "Later, in 2014" causing a gap in information and conflicting ideas in both sections. In the lead section, this sentence "The Apparel Group in New York City from 2011-2015", ends with a citation, but there is no end to the actual sentence as it continues with "before meeting Esosa Ighodaro and launching Black Women Talk Tech just two years later in 2017." I noticed there are two used citations in that one sentence, but the first citation is used in the middle, when both citations can be added at the end so you don't split a sentence with a citation before the sentence ends. Also, Even though it is explained who Ighodaro is in the next section, there is no explanation of who this individual is and their importance to Regina's information in the lead section "before meeting Esosa Ighodaro and launching Black Women Talk...". The article body section also states that there are two other individuals that helped found Black Women Talk Tech, Washington and Ighodaro, but only Ighodaro is mentioned in the previous section.

I think a good leading sentence or paragraph of the article can start by explaining Who Regina is, what she founded,and what she is currently doing. This can help with the overall narrative of the article.

One thing I started doing was adding Hyperlinks to certain keywords in the article. Those are the blue links you see in almost every Wikipedia article that lead to other articles. You can do this while editing by highlighting a word, or words and clicking the chain symbol on the left of the big 'A' towards the top of the page. This brings up relevant Wikipedia articles pertaining to what you have highlighted. An example is this sentence here Because of this, her entrepreneurship and business adventure began in North Carolina. North Carolina is a keyword of her entrepreneurship beginnings and it being highlighted can add more depth to understanding Regina.

In conclusion, I think you have the areas and sources to meet the needs of more information, but there is a good amount of persuasive writing in the article. There seems to be a lack of attribution in a few sentences, as well as precision. With some slight editing, additional information, clarity and attribution of specific information, the article can stand out more and provide the necessary details to the importance of Regina Gwynn.