User:Alexrevelle/Henrietta Phelps Jeffries/SinbadtheTayler Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Alexrevelle


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Alexrevelle/Henrietta Phelps Jeffries
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Henrietta Phelps Jeffries

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hey Alex, I read Henrietta Phelps Jeffries article and found it to be really interesting! The lead section is clear, though I wonder if it should allude to her trial if that is the most important thing about her. The article does represent an underrepresented group in my opinion; I am curious if there is anything that can be expanded about her co-founding of Macedonia AME Church. Additionally, I wonder if it is possible to expand her biography to include anything more about her work as a midwife/doctress. I looked at the references and I think the 5th one needs to be changed because it links to Ancestry.com, a resource that one must have an account to gain access to.

Lead
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - A new lead has not been added to reflect new changes. If this plans to be a section that is worked on, a note could be made in the draft page.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The current lead does have an introductory section that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, though it could be expanded.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?- Yes it does.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?- No it does not.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?- It is concise.

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic?- No new content has been added.

Is the content added up-to-date?- No new content has been added yet.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- It is hard to say that content is missing, rather content can be expanded.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does. Alex is addressing a woman in an underrepresented demographic.

Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral?- There is no new content added.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- The current article is well balanced.

Sources and References
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new content has been added but the current sources are present throughout most of the article.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- The sources do not appear to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

Here are some useful links I found as well in case you would like to check them out:

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/84334293/henrietta-jeffries

https://prabook.com/web/henrietta.jeffries/2341520

https://www.caswellcountync.org/genealogy/familygroup.php?familyID=F19345&tree=tree1

Check a few links. Do they work?- The links did work.

Organization
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There is no content added.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? N/A

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? N/A

Images and Media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does include a photograph of Henrietta Phelps Jeffries.

Are images well-captioned? There is no caption until you click on the photo.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The work is public domain.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.