User:Reshmijpatel6/User:Marthasjones/sandbox/KaiAbiola Peer Review

Peer review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? Marthasjones
Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Marthasjones/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation

The Lead has not been published yet since this is a new article, but it includes an introductory sentence that is concise, clear, and accurately describes Frances Harriet Williams. I think it may also be useful to include when she was born and when she died in the first sentence as well. The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections, and it does not include information that is not present in the article so far, which is great. Right now, I think the Lead is really concise and not 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?

Content evaluation

The content added so far is relevant to the topic and, from what I can tell, up-to-date. It also seems like one of the sources that will be used for the article is from 2017, which is a great way to add more up-to-date content. At the current moment, all that has been added to the sandbox draft so far seems like it belongs within the respective sections they have been placed in. Right now, it seems like the only content that is missing from the current parts written is her year of birth or date of birth.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added is neutral and nothing seems heavily biased toward a particular position at this moment. Since the information that has been presented so far is mainly just facts about her life, it doesn't seem like any viewpoints are necessarily overrepresented or underrepresented. In addition, after reading through the content, I didn't feel persuaded in favor of one position or another.

Sources and References

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

I'm not entirely sure if everything written currently all comes from one source or if the information is coming from other sources that will be cited in the future. The sources that are mentioned in the article do seem thorough though and should be helpful in clarifying where the information is coming from. There seems to be a good mix of current sources and historical sources, and all of the links I checked seemed to 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?

Organization evaluation

The content is well-written and well-organized. After reading through the Lead, Early Life, and Education sections, I felt like the information was not only concise and clear but also easy to read. There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed. Additionally, the content that will be added to this newly created article is broken down into an appropriate amount of sections that seem to reflect the major points of the life of Frances Harriet Williams.

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?

Images and media evaluation

There are no images added as of yet.

For New Articles Only

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

Yes, the article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements if all the sources that you are planning on utilizing in the article are used. From what I can tell, the list of sources you have currently seem to include a wide-range of information relating to the topic; however, I am not quite sure whether this is all the literature available on the subject. The way the article is currently organized is really similar to other biographical Wikipedia articles, thus I think this draft did a great job of following the patterns of similar articles. Furthermore, from what I can tell, the headings that will be used for the article thoroughly encompass all researchable aspects of her life. There are plenty of links to other articles in the current draft, which is great in terms of future discoverability.

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?

Overall evaluation

Yes, the content added has improved the overall quality of the article and has made the article more complete as this article is being written from scratch. After reading this draft, I feel like I have a better understanding of the life of Frances Harriet Williams. The strengths of the content added so far are its neutrality and its informative but clear and concise nature. Overall, I think the content added can be improved by indicating what sources were utilized for each piece of information written as well as going back in an including verifiable dates.