User:Laurencv/Dorothy Day/M-87-ch3113 Peer Review

User:Laurencv/Dorothy Day/M-87-ch3113 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? (Laurencv)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Laurencv/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

Lead evaluation

At the time of reviewing, it appears that a lead is not included. It would be beneficial to include a short sentence or two explaining the rest of the article before publishing.

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?

Content evaluation

The contents under the heading, lifelong devotion to the oppressed, seems to be up to date with resources that are up to date. It also identifies why Dorthy Day should be considered in the history of feminism, as there is a clear relation between Dorthy Day and feminism. The other subsections do not appear to be completed; therefore, the information under writing, rejection of gender roles and radical catholicism need to be further edited with additional information to tie Dorthy Day to the history of feminism. I believe this article and the contents do deal with the equity gap. It discusses an important profession, journalists, that some may not see as feminist. Additionally, it deals with a type of feminism, radical catholicism, which is niche and new.

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 under the section, lifelong devotion to the oppressed, appears to have a neutral tone that does not push a bias to the readers. This article seems to use a bit of June E. O'Connor's personal opinions about Dorthy Day but does not include any other individual's personal opinions. It might be useful to either balance this or to be careful with the usage of June E. O'Connor's comments. I cannot say anything about the contents under the subheading writing, rejection of gender roles and radical catholicism as the article is yet to be finished and there is too little information to judge the tone.

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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

This is once again, based on the content under the heading, lifelong devotion to the oppressed. Under this section, all the content appears to be backed by reliable sources. The sources for this article comprises of sources found through the school library along with newspapers and documentaries which I believe reflects the sources that can be found by the general public. This also signifies that the sources used in this article are diverse. Additionally, upon looking at the documentary along with the citations for the articles, the sources seem to be reliable. I do not think there was too much inclusion in terms of the authors. Additionally, one link is broken. I am specifically referring to the link on the word the born again feminism. There happens to be a link but it does not lead the readers to anything. It would be important to have that fixed before uploading to the main space.

Organization

Guiding questions

Organization evaluation

The content under the section lifelong devotion to the oppressed is concise. It explains Dorthy Day's contribution to feminism without repeating points. Additionally, the other sections that seem to be incomplete are currently concise as it is in bullet form. When writing the article, it would be important to maintain this conciseness and refrain from adding repetitive sentences. Unfortunately, at the time of reviewing, some spelling and grammar issues are present under the incomplete sections and should be read over before publishing. The presence of subheadings and headings make the article more organized and helps with the flow of information. Unfortunately, the subsections for most of the article seem to be incomplete and therefore, I cannot further comment on the flow of the content.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• There was no images in this article.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

New Article Evaluation

This is not a new article but the information about Dorthy Day and her contribution to feminism is quite sparse.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Overall evaluation

The article seems to be incomplete at the time of the peer review. For example, the contents under the subheading writing, rejection of gender roles and radical catholicism is yet to be finished. With that said, I enjoyed that this article does not solely focus on Dorthy Day. It also connects to other feminists such as Dolores Huerta. This further signifies that Dorthy Day is connected with the history of feminism. I believe the article can be improved if the bullet points under some of the subheading is reworded to flow more smoothly and is no longer in bullet points. Another round of proofreading is needed at the time of reviewing.