User:Andreaplascencia/Chicana feminism/Hbnh1 Peer Review

I. Which article are you evaluating?

Chicana Feminism

Andreaplascencia

II. Evaluate the article

Evaluate the article using the following rubric. Note, you do not need to leave comments for each question. Use the comments boxes to elaborate on notable successes or highlight key shortcomings of the article.

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

QUESTION

YES/NO

COMMENTS

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is no lead in the sandbox

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is no lead in the sandbox

original article does not really describe article’s sections

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is no lead in the sandbox

Is the lead concise (as opposed to overly detailed)?

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is no lead

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

QUESTION

YES/NO

COMMENTS

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Is the content up-to-date?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? That is, does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

QUESTION

YES/NO

COMMENTS

Is the article neutral?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

-some minor allusions to it in the original article

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

QUESTION

YES/NO

COMMENTS

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

-citations a bit abrupt in the original article

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Are the sources current?

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

sources in the original article are current

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

YES

plenty of sources out there

sources in the original article are credible and pretty extensive already

Check a few links. Do they work?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

QUESTION

YES/NO

COMMENTS

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

YES

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

Images and Media

QUESTION

YES/NO

COMMENTS

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

NO

as of 12/08/21 5:45PM there is only an unedited portion of the original article copied straight into the sandbox

-more images could be used in the original

Are images well-captioned?

N/A

no images

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

N/A

no images

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

N/A

no images

III. Overall impressions

Because the sandbox currently does not have any edits to the original article, the following peer review will be about the original article “Chicana Feminism.” The article has several sections that organize the information very well. The sections however, are all subsections of the overview main section. The other sections should all be their own sections rather than being nested subsections of Overview. Although the article uses up to date and strong sources, the citations to the information do not flow well sometimes, making the article a bit more difficult to read. The lead section could also be improved on, as it does not really give an overview of the main topics of the article. Additional images could be added to enhance the article as well, especially in the Chicana art section. Images can help make the topic “feel more real” to the readers rather than some abstract concept that isn’t happening in the real world. Throughout the article, there are also some parts that allude towards bias. Rewriting those sections to be more neutral or acknowledging that bias and presenting the opposite side as well could be used to fix this problem.