User:CSRoberson/Matrix of domination/Rone Bee 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? CSRoberson
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:CSRoberson/Matrix of domination

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? hasn't updated the lead but she is adding onto another heading/content about criminality for the article
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? n/a
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? n/a
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? n/a
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise (from the original article about term)

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? n/a because adding info onto another already established heading/section; however, in the original article, there is a confusion about how intersectionality and matrix of domination may be similar but not interchangeable. also, the original article also makes jump claims and also reaffirms the issue of marginalized of black women/women of color being marginalized with its focus on mainly women/gender or class rather than how all -isms form to make matrix of domination
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes because article is dealing with a theory within black feminist thought that

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? n/a; just one article cited so far
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
• Are the sources current? yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? n/a just because one source. however, the same source is placed in the reference list multiple times
• Check a few links. Do they work? yes

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? just needs to add words missing for one setence that knocks off flow. also, missing commas. ex: "in doing so," and ",argues Heitzeg"
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? n/a just one section but the one section flows from point to point well

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (N/A)

• 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 since just adding information onto the article. she added a section about criminality.
• What are the strengths of the content added? I think that the example you added is a good start to help readers conceptualize how the matrix of domination is still useful today and can help us analyze how identities intersect to shape lived experience due to the oppressions they experience because of their identity and also how criminality impacts marginalized vs unmarginalized groups. also, i liked how you added/cited the article that gives the example and explains how the matrix of domination is used to analyze the how race, class, etc. intersect and shape our perceptions on who is criminal or not.
• How can the content added be improved? look up other articles using keywords to find more on matrix of domination to help add more sections on matrix on domination(since it is viewed as similar to intersectionality, you could use it find more on matrix of domination. also, you could find where collins talked about it or gain examples of it from the readings in our syballus.) also, make sure to reuse the source for citation so it doesn't keep re-adding/reciting itself also, re-add info about globilization/south africa because i think it goes along better with the topic that the original article's sections on simply gender or class separately