User:Anctrome3132020/David Potter (historian)/GenevieveHis313 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? (provide username) Anctrome3132020
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Anctrome3132020/David Potter (historian)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, but I don't think it needs to be
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it clearly states who the article is about
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but I don't think it is needed since it is explained what he does for a living.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead is a good summary of the contents of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is very good and gives a good summary of David Potter in a couple short sentences. I would love it if you could add a picture of him, but I also understand if you cannot.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes,
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the sources used are recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? A picture of the historian would be nice, but I understand if you don't have one because of copyright issues
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
You do a really good job adding information to the page. I especially like the information square next to the lead that had lists of institutions and awards. If possible, could you add a section about nominated and won awards in a content section?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content keeps a neutral tone
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The only time we see a criticism is in the "reception" heading and that one is explaining how other historians view the work of this one so I believe it helps explain the article and works in this context.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? In the "reception" header, are there any reviews that praise his work that you could add as well?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content is neutral and only explains the different viewpoints people have.

Tone and balance evaluation
You have really good tone and balance for this. The only thing that feels a little bit missing a positive note about his work is the "reception" section.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the sources are reliable secondary sources, like the New York Times, or from reviews of other well known historians who have reviewed the work of David Potter.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there are several reviews listed, several articles, and a nice list of the works that the author has written.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the only sources that are older are the actual works written by the author so those are perfect.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are several authors that are included, not sure if they are marginalized...
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links I checked took me to the works or information.

Sources and references evaluation
I really like the different sources you have, there's a lot of different information and many sources of information to choose from for info about David Potter.

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? Not that I noticed, it all seemed very well written
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I like the way you have this organized, it flows really well and makes sense.

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

Images and media evaluation
I do think you could benefit from adding a picture of the author, but I'm not sure what the copyright situation is for his picture and you may have already tried and ended up not successful.

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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, the list is very thorough
 * 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? Yes, the added infobox is very clear and includes important information.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

David Stone Potter <-- I assume this was the article you're adding to? When I clicked the link from the wiki education dashboard I didnt see any information at first and this page includes the same lead paragraph as you sandbox draft does. The original article is very empty so I would say you basically created your article from scratch.

New Article Evaluation
For your "Reception" section, if there are wiki pages for the other authors who you put the reviews of, you could try to link them?

If it's possible you could link his wife as well, Ellen Ann Bauerle.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the actual article is very sparse and the info added includes way more information that is helpful for the overall picture of the author
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added makes it so someone knew to finding out who this author is can get a good summary and good links for further research into them if they wanted to.
 * How can the content added be improved? A picture if possible. Links to Ellen Ann Bauerle, James Lunt, Donald G. Kyle wiki pages would be helpful as well

Overall evaluation
You do a really good job on this article. You added most of the information since the original article only includes the introduction sentence. The information is backed by good sources and I like that you include a lot of the author's works so curious readers can see more if they like it. Overall you did a really good job keeping the neutral tone and also provide a point of view from similar historians. Overall, you have done a really good job and I look forward to seeing how you finalize the page.