User:Historicleaf/Arthur Ramos/Sydsor 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?

Historicleaf

Link to draft you're reviewing: Editing User:Historicleaf/Arthur Ramos - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): NA

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead section: The lead section contains a concise introductory sentence that is relevant to the subject. All information in the lead section is also included elsewhere in the article. All information in the lead section appears to be up to date and reflective of any changes or additions the author has made to the article.

Content: The content is relevant and up to date. The article meets criteria for the assignment as the subject belongs to an underrepresented population. The article is lacking information in the research section, but it appears that this article is still in progress and that this information is forthcoming. There is no content that does not belong in the article.

Tone and balance: The tone of the article is neutral, which is difficult to pull off considering the nature of the ideologies that the subject of the article challenged through their work. The article does not appear to be biased towards any particular viewpoint, although it does focus on the perspectives of the subject and does not contain very much information regarding opposing views. However I think this is appropriate as it is focusing on the things most relevant to the subject.

Sources and references: The article cites three secondary sources in addition to the primary sources of the author's work. The secondary sources span a wide range of publication dates, with once source published as recently as 2019 suggesting up to date sources. The sources also represent a wide range of authors. Links to sources are functional. The author may wish to review this additional source I found on JSTOR Arthur Ramos: Brazilian Anthropologist (1903-1949) on JSTOR.

Organization: The overall organization of the article flows very well as it goes from broad information to more specific information. There were some minor changes I tried to make in terms of writing style and word choice (e.g., changed adapting to adopting in lead section, hyphenated mixed-race). However, there was a conflict when trying to publish my edits that I could not figure out how to resolve, so I was unable to edit the page.

Images and media: N/A

New article specific review: The article does meet notability criteria and is supported by three secondary sources. The list of sources is fairly exhaustive, although the author may wish to check different databases to see if there are any other sources available. The article resembles other Wikipedia articles and contains links to other pages to make it more discoverable.

Overall impressions: The article appears to still be in progress, but it seems to be accurate, up to date, and about a notable subject who is underrepresented. Strengths of the article include its' organization. Areas for improvement include some copyediting concerns.