User:Reshmijpatel6/Jessie De Priest/Kdorse29 Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? Reshmijpatel6
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Reshmijpatel6/Jessie De Priest
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise, but does not describe the article's topic clearly. The introductory sentence does not define the topic and instead relates the topic to another topic.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- The Lead does not fully include a brief description of the article's major sections as it does not touch on early life and later years.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- The Lead contains only information that is present in the article.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is relatively concise but may need more detail because it sums up De Priest's life to her attachment to Oscar De Priest and the incident with First Lady Hoover.
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. The lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise, but does not describe the article's topic clearly. The introductory sentence does not define the topic and instead relates the topic to another topic. The Lead does not fully include a brief description of the article's major sections as it does not touch on early life and later years. The Lead contains only information that is present in the article. The lead is relatively concise but may need more detail because it sums up De Priest's life to her attachment to Oscar De Priest and the incident with First Lady Hoover.
Content
[edit]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?
Content evaluation
[edit]Most of the content added is relevant to the topic and much of its up to date. However, the content appears to focus the significance of the topic based on the controversy with First Lady Hoover. There is content missing in the different sections. This includes content relating to legacy and the controversy with First Lady Hoover. Content that does not belong may include the notes section as it does not appear to connect completely to the topic as set up in the Lead.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The content is mostly neutral with the exception of the claim of what Jessie De Priest is best known for. There are not claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position. There are also no viewpoints that appear overrepresented or underrepresented based on the content. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor or against a position.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The new content is partially backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. Many of the sources come from other websites and not from academic journals or books. For instance, information concerning burial comes from a commercial website. The sources are not completely thorough as there exists additional literature on the topic not covered in the references of the article. The sources are mostly current and many of the links on the article work.
Organization
[edit]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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]The content added is well-written as it is mostly concise, clear and easy to read. The content added does not appear to have any grammatical or spelling errors. The content is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.
Images and Media
[edit]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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The image used in the article enhances understanding of the topic as it relates to a notable event Jessie De Priest was involved. The image is captioned well. It may adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as the source is identified and the image is in the public domain. The image is laid out in an appealing format as it is located toward the top of the article.
For New Articles Only
[edit]If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
New Article Evaluation
[edit]The article does appear to be supported by at least 2 of the secondary sources and they both focus more broadly on African American-related topics. The list of sources may not be completely exhaustive as due to Jessie De Priest association with the Hoover Administration and other possible connections based on Oscar De Priest's life, more sources should be compiled. It likely does not represent all available literature on the subject. The article contains info boxes, section headings, and other features found in similar articles with the exception of the notes section, which appears out of place. The article does link to articles but only one directionally as the article cannot be accessed through a link from other articles.
Overall impressions
[edit]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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]The article is more complete with the additional content added to the article. The strengths of the content added include most of the content having neutrality, references for most of the information and having organization. The content can be improved through further elaboration in sections lacking significant content\, use of more secondary sources, defining the topic in the Lead and reorganizing the notes into references.