User:Adr2018/United Farm Workers/RandomSTAY 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

Whose work are you reviewing?

Adr2018

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Adr2018/United_Farm_Workers&veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&redirect=no
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): United Farm Workers

Evaluate the drafted changes

Starting off, the choice to include community organization for health care really contributes to the article. The examples given illustrate the complexity of the UFW, especially how they went beyond just equality in the workplace; they helped further all aspects of farmworker's lives. I assume that the addition would be placed in or around the "Community organizing and divisions of labor in the UFW" section. A suggestion I have for that section would be to explain what the dwindling resources that caused the decline of UFW sponsored healthcare were. As for the next addition of 1970s, the information on what caused the decline of the UFW is very relevant and important in illustrating why the UFW lost traction. I would place that snippet in between the last two sentences under the "1970s" section. Finally, the Robert Kennedy section looks great, but I would love to see more on the effects his death had on the farmworkers movement: i.e. did they feel discouraged? What came out of that loss of hope? The Robert Kennedy information could fit under the roles section, or it very well could be it's own little section. I think that's really up to you. Something I did notice as I read the original article was the lack of Dolores Huerta information. I would advice you to focus on adding more about her role and importance in the movement. So far though, great job! Although there were some minor spelling errors, the flow and information is fantastic. Your sources seem to be academic journals and books, which are solid sources, and they are pretty new considering that the information is historical figures and events. The information is also presented in a clear and non-biased way. Overall, you're on the right track, just keep expanding on your research!

-Best of luck

RandomSTAY (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)