User:Akaj3f18/Racial Uplift/Anchordown1998 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? Akaj3f18
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Akaj3f18/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
So far, there is not a defined lead sentence or paragraph. I think structuring a lead that contains the "who, what, where, when, and why" is the first step. As it stands, there's no definition or explanation for what racial uplift actually was. Was it an action? A program? A way of thinking or ideology? I think that your first sentence should answer this and that maybe you can incorporate the original first sentence as a clause. Also, the lead is somewhat information dense (I'm guessing that's mainly because you haven't fully worked out how you would like to structure your article as far as sub-headers go). I do think that you include important topics that can translate well into different sections. For example, you can create a section about the role of music in relation to racial uplift or a section about the Talented Tenth in relation to racial uplift as well. What role did the church play? If there is information out there, I think these are interesting routes to explore.

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
I think that the information and sources you've chosen for your topic are interesting; however, I don't think that they've been fully developed yet. In the article, you reference "black leaders," but the phrase feels somewhat ambiguous. I know that you mention W.E.B. Du Bois, Booker T. Washington, and Florence Price, but are there any more? What role did these guys play specifically in propelling "racial uplift" ideology. I think that expanding on W.E.B. Du Bois will be both easy here. He is very well published, and you're already talking about his philosophies of "double consciousness" and the "talented tenth."

Also, since there were supporters of racial uplift, were there any known opposers? Any prominent figure who didn't agree with the black leaders? Finding these opposing figures could be an opportunity to include another section surrounding the "controversy" of the term.

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
I believe that you've done an excellent job in maintaining a neutral tone. I don't see any instances of suggestive language. I do think that there can be improvements to the "balance," but that's simply because you haven't defined any sections yet. Once you establish those, I'm sure the "balance" will follow.

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 was having difficulty accessing the links, but I'm not sure if that was an issue on my end or not (because I also had issues accessing your Sandbox for whatever reason). So, I can't really make any definitive comments about "reliability of source information," but I'm sure you've chosen well. I noticed that the publishing dates are spread out (1991, 2003, 2013, etc), so I think that that has the opportunity to show how the word has been studied over time. In terms of the in-text citations, you've used every source so far, so there is a balance. They also all seem to be secondary.

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
I think that adding more defined / detailed sections will aid in establishing organization. Right now, there are a lot of interesting thoughts (regarding music, talented tenth, double consciousness, eugenics) that I think can be fleshed out more. Once a space is devoted to these topics, I think that they can be discussed in further detail than the lead will allow. In terms of grammatical errors, there were a couple minor ones that I did note (a couple/few in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph). I didn't see any glaring grammatical issues though.

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 and Overall evaluation
I believe that this article does meet all of the requirements set by Wiki. It serves as a good starting point to grow from. Additionally, you connect your article to other pre-existing wiki articles when possible. This makes the topic feel more rooted and connected in history. Simply by adding a new article, you’ve contributed to the pool on information found on Wiki. I do think there is room for growth and improvement, but I’m sure that comes with just having more time to digest all of the information. My main suggestions/critiques would be: (1) defining racial uplift more concisely, (2) decluttering the lead and establishing sections, and (3) expanding the information / detail given to each topic that you do address. I am very interested in seeing how your article progresses. “Racial uplift” isn’t a foreign concept to me, but I didn’t know that there was an actual term associated with this way of thinking. So, I’m curious to learning more about your topic as well. Good luck!