User:Awesomeaxolotl/Pearl Sherrod/Zmbashir 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?

Awesomeaxolotl

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Awesomeaxolotl/Pearl Sherrod
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

The Lead is concise and gives information about the person, when they were prevalent, and relevant organizations.

Early Life

This content does a good job contextualizing the early life of Pearl Sherrod. It begins with how she grew up, where she worked, who she married, how many children she had, etc. Then it ties in with the articles goal of why she joined the NOI organization and how she joined it. There is a lack of citations in the section.

Activism

This section touches on the various organization Pearl Sherrod has been apart of. This section does a good job of highlighting the goals of this organization and what these organizations have done, as well as its context with the person itself. There is also a lack of citations in the "Development in Our Own" sub-section.

Later Life

This section also goes a good job contextualizing the later life of Pearl Sherrod, highlighting what happened after the organizations, what she did after leaving those organizations and a little of what happened with those organizations.

All the content in the article is relevant and important for the topic. The content is up to date and goes over the person's history and organizations tied to that person, along with their goals.

The sourcing might need improvement in some sections, however overall there are citations in relevant sections, with a references section at the end.

The content is well-written, well-organized, and is grammatically correct. There are no added images or media at this time.

The article is supported by multiple reliable secondary sources.

The article does have section headings and sub headings which I think they did a good job organizing the information into those corresponding sections.

This article overall is very informative and addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations. The content in the article is well-written, just to add a few citations if necessary.