User:Abomb66/Susan Nye Hutchison/Slightlyseriousspinster Peer Review

General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Abombe66
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abomb66/Susan_Nye_Hutchison

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:

It seems that you don’t have a lead but instead jump directly into Nye’s early life, this of course is a draft so I just make sure that you get that in.

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?

Content evaluation

Right now, you have three main headings, Start of Career, Family, Education/religion. While this is a precursor draft and not the final, it will be important to add more information with the work that she specifically did, the article itself rather abruptly enters into start of career without giving any information about her. While we would love this to be a history paper where we can get away with making claims, make sure to has information that is sound, and can be footnoted. I would recommend foot noting more, even if you are relying on one source. In some ways it helps to think about it in a court of law, an objection of hearsay would be objected out (i.e. I heard it from someone else or in terms of this project I read it in a source but didn’t footnote it) or relevance (how is this information helping with article.) One phrase that I thought seemed a bit off was, “As it was nearby and prestigious enough to qualify her for her job at Raleigh Academy, Hutchinson likely attended Litchfield Female Academy despite never scribing the name.” Because there is not a direct footnote, or source, and in many ways this is speculative, this sentence shouldn’t be in the article, if you can prove that she went there  include it but if you can’t, don’t include it.

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?

Your section on her religious faith I think it is a bit speculative, words like encourage or could don’t have directive answer that is based in direct evidence. This passage in particular I think needs to be worked on, “she was likely encouraged to reflect spiritually through journaling. Hutchinson would have been encouraged to engage in social reform in areas like education and antislavery and push for a more benevolent society under God. It is possible that Hutchinson was not allowed to be a minister and, still wanting to be a lay minister and spread Presbyterianism ideology, instead took up the societally accepted role of teaching.” I know I really struggled with writing Wikipedia articles as my English and history major brain had to be shut off in making claims and refocus and recenter on the idea producing almost a scientific style of writing. This sentence also needs to be reworked, “possibly because she had a more French education as opposed to the English curriculum at Raleigh Academy—and was not used to speaking in front of crowds of men and women.” There are other ways in which you can phrase sentences, using evidence to address this point.

“

Tone and balance evaluation

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Right now you have only one source, and since this is an early draft I bet you have other sources to help you. The biography that you have chosen is sound and seems to have a wealth of information, if you have trouble locating information look at the authors footnotes and bibliography as you can get a wealth of information from there.

Sources and references evaluation

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?

You have a nice way of writing, it is quite nice. I would work on expanding your sections, hyperlinking other Wikipedia pages in order to strengthen you work.

Organization evaluation

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?

You currently don’t have any images, and I might be that you will be unable to find any of them of Nye. It is especially hard when we are in a pandemic and sources we might have access to we don’t have, plus early photography was something only the upper echelon of society could have, if you can’t find anything of her maybe somewhere she attended or lived just to give a visual appeal.

Images and media evaluation

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?

I do not know if this is a new article, but I am assuming it is. You will wanr to make sure you add more source information, work on formatting the article to feel more Wikipedia-esque—the key is hyperlinking, headers, bolded texts, etc. I am excited to see more information about Nye as she seems like a fascinating woman that I myself would like to be friends with—this is something that I have found with all of the scientists we have learned about—they would be awesome friends!

New Article Evaluation

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

You have an awesome start on this text, just watch out for too much theorizing and speculation and adding more sources. We have to work to turn off sections in our brains while writing Wikipedia articles which is surprisingly hard.