User:Bldansereau/Celia (slave)/Cjung10 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? Bldansereau
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bldansereau/Celia (slave)

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
The lead is concise and comprehensive, hitting the main points of the article. All the information presented is in the article but the lead isn't redundant. One suggestion for improvement is to include a final statement about the impact of Celia's case in history/popular culture/law discussions. There is a section about "Celia in history and popular culture" that could be summarized in the lead as well.

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
The content is all relevant to the topic and appears up-to-date since the publications of the sources range from 1991 to 2020. It is a very detailed overview of the case and the background and legacy of it. One improvement could be to expand more on the legal arguments and significance of the case and decision. For example, from the thirteen.org article about Celia, there are some links to Missouri laws ("Slave Code" and statute of 1845) that were relevant to the case and could be described in the article for further context.

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
The tone is neutral and the content does not attempt to persuade the reader. There are no unsubstantiated claims.

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
Yes, the sources are thorough and come from reliable sources. The links work and there is a good range of publication dates and source types. Most of the citations come from the McLaurin book, but this may be because there are few published sources about Celia and not the fault of the researcher. One suggestion is to look at the "Research Guides" and Africana Studies databases through the Sheridan libraries to see if there are any journals/articles that talk about Celia or her case. At least in the "Black Studies Center" database, there is mention of Celia's case in a couple of scholarly articles. An issue with the database articles is that they are behind a paywall, but they may still be a good source of additional information.

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
The content is well-organized. Although not chronological, the separation of information into "Background" and the trial makes sense and flows smoothly. There are some grammatical errors in the article ("Judge Hall Celia's jury..." in paragraph 2), so checking the grammar would be one improvement. Another suggestion is that, besides being put in the Bibliography section, the books/articles specifically about Celia (Thurman, McLaurin), could be compiled into another section called "Further readings" or "External links" to provide easy access to them if there are online versions (at the McLaurin is archived). This type of section has been used in other WIkipedia articles and might be a great addition to this one.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media to evaluate. The article mentions a portrait of Celia, but unsure if this image is in the public domain.

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
Yes, I believe the article meets the Notability requirements. There are more than 3 reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. Yes, the article follows the pattern of similar articles (section headings, etc.) and it links to other Wiki articles. As noted in the Sources section of this peer review, the list of sources is detailed but there may be some more academic articles in the available literature of the subject that can be found through library research databases.

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
Overall, the article is detailed, organized, and well-written. The strengths are the precision of citations and the descriptive content. Some improvement can be made by including more sources from research databases, proofreading the grammar, and possibly adding a relevant image. But altogether, the article is nearly complete and substantially adds to Wikipedia. This is a very important topic and it's really impressive writing a new article from scratch.