User:Arba02/User:SocksTheKitty/Carroll Chatham/IcecreamPenguin 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?

SocksTheKitty

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:SocksTheKitty/Carroll Chatham
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Does Not Exist.

Evaluate the drafted changes

(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.)

Lead: (I am saying that the lead is the first paragraph of the article) A very strong lead with a short, But detailed description about Carroll Chatham and who he is. The lead paragraph doesn't mislead the reader on what it will be about. I would consider adding a sentence that builds on "He founded Chatham" because from reading this I don't know what Chatham is. (Maybe say he founded Chatham Jewelry Company like mentioned later in the article).

Content: I like the sections added in the article (Early Life, Career, and Legacy). They give a broad insight on his life and what he created. The content within the article seems relevant to the main topic, But I would like to have more history on his upbringing, I think this article definitely caters to wikipedia's content equity gap because when looking up Carroll Chatham I don't see a lot of content about him and his work. A lot of the article about him are from websites directly about him.

Tone and Balance: The author doesn't try to persuade the readers anytime during the article. It is written in a very neutral tone and does a good job of giving important information and not branching off into irrelevant topics. I think that the legacy section is under represented in this article. You could potentially add a part that adds about what they are doing today. It seems to end very abruptly in this section and this could help close out the article.

Sources and References: There aren't a lot of sources to go off of and they aren't in the article (Already stated by author). with that being said I think that the sources in the reference list are ok. There are a few that are extremely outdated with one from 1949 and another one from 1989. I would recommend finding resources that are more up to date. The links to the sources do work which is a good thing!

Organization: I like the organization of the topics I would agree they should go in that order. I also think that The content is correctly broken down into appropriate topics that provide a good insight on Carroll Chatham. There are a few sentences that could be shortened and still tell the same message, Otherwise I think that the grammar is very good. I also don't see any spelling errors.

Images and Media: No Pictures or media.

New Article Review: I am confident that the article meets the notability requirement, However I would definitely recommend finding a few newer sources to help back up your articles notability. I think there is enough information on this topic that there should be a wikipedia article pertaining to this. Article is also created neatly with headings and sections. Good intro paragraph that gives insight on what the article will be on. The article does not link to other articles yet, I would consider looking into linking articles like Flux, Verneuil method, Diamond, Sapphires, etc. to help the article become more discoverable.

Overall Impressions: Overall this article is very impressive for a first draft, I think that if you expand on the middle sections a bit more it would be a full fledged article. I think that this content is all relevant to the article. One improvement I would recommend is to find newer articles, add hyperlinks to other wikipedia articles, and expand on the underrepresented topics in your article.