User:Aarukrish/Phoebe Couzins/HollyLovesHistory Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Aarukrish
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Phoebe Couzins (I cannot access the draft, so I will peer review the article itself if that's okay!)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. I also think the Lead could perhaps include more about her suffrage activism.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
I think the Lead is concise and well-written. I don't know much about Phoebe Couzins, but given that she was a suffrage activist, the Lead could perhaps include the fact that she was a suffragist.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I believe so.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I believe so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Suffrage activism can be added, of course!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, because the article details women's history.

Content evaluation
So far, the content is detailed, but I definitely think there is plenty of room to discuss suffrage activism.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems balanced and does not persuade the reader in any particular direction.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * N/A (I'm not sure which information is new)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part, yes! Some sources are from the 1980s and 1990s, but I saw plenty of current sources. I was super excited to see a Newspapers.com article accessed in 2020!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I'm not entirely sure.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are varied, which is great! They all seem reliable, and many are current. The links also seem to work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
The writing is very good, and contains no grammatical or spelling errors. The content is also well-organized, and I think the content could maybe be broken down even further.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I'm not sure which content you added, Aarushi, but I think the article is in great shape so far!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content contains various facets of Couzins's life, and I like how the article details how Couzins was a lawyer, and then became a suffragist. I think this is an interesting transition that would be interesting to learn more about!
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Perhaps you could include a separate section detailing her suffrage activism, if you are interested in doing so? Just a random suggestion! :)

Overall evaluation
So far, I think this article has great information. There are also plenty of opportunities to expand upon ideas and greater detail Couzins's involvement in the Suffrage Movement. I can't wait to see what else you can find out about Phoebe Couzins!