User:Lefty89/Ellen Cassedy/Myadog23! 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?

Lefty89 and Avilolx

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lefty89/Ellen_Cassedy?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): N/A

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.)

I would recommend creating more of a “lead” to the article giving a brief overview of who Ellen Cassedy is and why she is worth learning about. Then, carry on into your early life paragraphs etc..The very first sentence as well as some information from the other articles (the most important facts or information) are things that could be put into the lead. From there, going into your subheadings you could talk more in depth about each of the topics mentioned, which you already have a great start with! I think the subheadings are great ways to organize the information. What you have incorporated so far is up to date, and much of the information is support with dates and time frames. I think the content itself is great, but one thing to be careful of his including adjectives about Ellen such as “fierce” or others used, just because to some that might come across as bias, since describing people could potentially be seen as opinion based, and that wouldn’t be a great look for the article.

Looking at sources, I am not seeing any inserts of where you used your three sources. After each piece of information used, there should be a citation as to where that information came from. I see you have sources in your references, but I would suggest going back and identify and matching which facts go with which source. On my end, the second source needs to have the C in Cassedy uppercase, and there seems to be an error message shown (go back and check the format of this source). I would suggest adding links to other wikipedia articles such as 9to5 or the YIVO institute talked about. The I in involvement needs to be capitalized (subheading), a few sentences are missing punctuation marks, and I would double check how 9to5 is abbreviated, sometimes it is without spaces and sometimes it is spelled out using letters depending on the context. An idea if looking to add more content would be to add more specific examples of projects she worked on or how/why her legacy lives on.

Overall, I think the content itself is relevant and gives a great overview of the topic. The information is easy to read, is chronological, and is straight to the point. A few pictures or a headshot of Ellen Cassedy would complete the article. Apart from a few spelling errors, the need to incorporate sources within the article, and other points I mentioned, I think this article is off to a great start, and the information did in fact help me learn about who Ellen was and why she is important.