User:Bldansereau/User:Marthasjones/sandbox/Bldansereau 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? (Marthasjones)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Marthasjones/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

 * Lead looks pretty well rounded for the article. Concise and detailed enough. In this current draft, the article does not cover the Truman presidency, so only the lead does mention Williams' position in the presidency.
 * There are a couple grammar/formatting issues in the lead: "(NAACP.)" - period ought to go outside the parenthesis; brackets around "of Price Administration).

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

 * Early Life
 * Content seems relevant. I think the two sentences about Williams' parents could be condensed into one. Right now not seeing the relevance of Williams' parents being trained as educators or settling in St. Louis?
 * The Early Life section has no sources cited at this point.
 * Couple grammar issues in "Early Life" - "parents four children" > "parents' four children" or just rephrased as "the youngest of four children."
 * .Education
 * This section says the "University of Cincinnati...was not a good fit" - why? Also, according to whom?
 * This section also says: "Williams' mother applied to Mount Holyoke" which seems weird to me. Was this period-typical for parents to apply on the behalf of their children?
 * Like "Early Life," this section does not yet have any citations indicated.
 * The rest
 * In progress, but what is there looks good.

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

 * Neutral and balanced
 * Nothing over- or underrepresented yet.

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

 * Could use some sources. If they are meant to be here, I am not seeing them.

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 have mentioned some grammar issues earlier. Article is otherwise concise and clear.
 * The article's headings need to be formatted as headings to help readability.
 * Seems to follow the recommended Biography page format.

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?

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 to the first, presumably.
 * I don't know where the sources are.
 * Article more or less follows the recommended Biography article template. Perhaps the addition of an infobox would be good.
 * Article could use a "See Also" section distinctly linking to other articles, imo.

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

 * Content added improves the article.
 * Strengths: overall format, good information present
 * Places for improvement: Article's Early Life sections needs information about parents condensed or qualified; Education section needs the mother's app to Holyoke clarified; Sources/citations need to be added; Headings need to be formatted as such; might benefit from an infobox + picture(s)