Jump to content

User:Nqm5156/Kendall School Division II for Negroes/Parisgap Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General info

[edit]
Whose work are you reviewing?

Nqm5156/Kendall School Division II for Negroes

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Nqm5156/Kendall School Division II for Negroes
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

[edit]

Wow, this page looks like it belongs on wikipedia! The sources are extensive and varied, and the amount of detail on the page is fantastic. You've done a fantastic job!

Here's my review:

Lead

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, although I think the first sentence could be shortened and combined with the second.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? In a sense. I think the lead could be shortened to be more concise, as it seems to provide detail that is then repeated in the article.
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything is covered.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? As mentioned earlier, I think the lead could benefit from some trimming, or else formatting into smaller paragraphs. It seems to be a brick of text that is longer than expected for a lead.

Content

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, incredibly relevant and detailed!
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Yes!
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think everything is relevant, and the sections do a good job of allowing the reader to skim to pick out what they want, or to read it all if they wish.
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes! Fantastic topic, and one I knew nothing about before reading.

Tone/Balance

  • Is the content added neutral? Yes, and it's incredibly well-written. There is a great flow to the article that keeps the reader interested.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? N/A
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? N/A
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? N/A

Sources

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? N/A
  • Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) I selected a few sources as a sample and they seemed to confirm!
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, incredibly thorough and detailed
  • Are the sources current? Yes!
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Unknown as I did not check every citation, but they come from a variety of sources.
  • 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.) N/A
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!

Organization

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, great writing style and good use of sections/headers
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Minor, nit-picky suggestion:
    • Under "Background of Louise Miller": In February of 1952, she never gave up and filed suit against the DC Board of Education, the Kendall School, and DC Public Schools with five other parents.
      • "She didn't give up, and in February of 1952 filed suit..."
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, and offers a range of background

Images

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes! If any more could be added, that would further enhance the article (i.e. Photos of Louise & family, if any exist)
  • Are images well-captioned? Yes, concise and informative
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, could be a bit bigger if that is possible

For New Articles

  • Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes, great job
  • How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes!
  • 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? Yes, this looks like it could be a real wiki artcile
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, great job on links


Overall, your article has really inspired me. This is a fantastic example of "what to do right", and I learned a lot. Great job!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nqm5156/Kendall_School_Division_II_for_Negroes/Parisgap_Peer_Review&oldid=1015393036"