User:Breannadooling/Nico DiMarco/GiannaParisi 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? Breannadooling, Madelynrogers, & Tessdekker
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Breannadooling/Nico DiMarco

Lead evaluation
Your lead has a good few introductory sentences that solidify exactly who Nico DiMarco is. The only complaint that I have is that it may be a little too short, but Leads are supposed to be concise so this really shouldn't be a problem. If you did want to extend it a bit, I would add a couple more sentences relative to his career and impact.

Content evaluation
I definitely think all of the content in this article is up to date, and everything discussed is relevant to the topic. However, I do think that there is some content that could still be missing. It would be really nice to have a section after "Career" that describes DiMarco's legacy and impact on the Deaf community, as he is an important member of the community today and much can be said about his impact.

Tone and balance evaluation
When reading your article, a lot of your information seems to come from either DiMarco himself, or from people who are close to him. I'm getting this impression from the tone as I read the article, and from the detailed personal information listed in the article. I do think you could maybe edit the paper in a way that is more neutral and distanced. For example, the sentence "When asked to give his best advice to other Deaf people, DiMarco says to remember that Deaf people can do anything. According to DiMarco, if other Deaf people want to DJ, they should simply 'do their homework and make it happen,' because they’re equally as capable of achieving success" is information coming straight from DiMarco's mouth. While this would really make sense for an autobiography, for a Wikipedia article it really is not very neutral and purely factual information about his life, so I would eliminate sentences like this.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Sources and references evaluation
The sources listed are all current and all the links work, which is good. However, not all of the sources are very reliable and neutral (since I think I saw in a tutorial that for biographies, autobiographical-type references were not encouraged). I don't think all of the references have to be peer-reviewed journal articles (I think for new articles, there just needs to be 2-3), so I would not be too concerned about where your sources are coming from as long as you make sure they look neutral. However, I would just keep this in mind and be on the lookout for strong sources that would further strengthen the article. There are also some errors in the references that need to be fixed. I think if you try to input the information manually and look into all of the error types the citations can be fixed easily.

Organization evaluation
Overall, I would say that the content is pretty well written -- there are no grammatical or spelling errors that I can see (though I'm pretty bad at finding grammatical errors anyway), and its organization is a good start. I would just like to point out that the headings to each of your sections could be improved upon. I see that you used very small subheadings for each of your sections when you should be using regular big Headers, so that is just something to keep in mind to make organization easier. There is also not yet a title to the article typed onto the page, so this is something to fix.

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? There
 * 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
This article meets the Wikipedia's Notability requirements. The list of sources is pretty exhaustive considering there is probably not a lot of literature on Nice DiMarco, but the sources can definitely be improved upon as new literature comes out (and if you just stay on the lookout to continue improving your sources). The article does not follow the patterns of other similar articles, but I talked about that more in the section before this about the article's organization. My Wikipedia article is also a biography (I'm doing Andrew Foster!), so feel free to look for that if you are unsure about how to do all of the headings. You also linked Nyle DiMarco's page and Gallaudet University's page in your article, which is very useful in making your article more discoverable.

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
I think this is a really good start to a new article about a person who is still alive now. Creating an article seems really difficult (especially when the person you're talking about is alive and there is not a ton of literature out about them at the moment). With this in mind, the article is a good start but it could definitely be expanded upon and more information can be added to give a better idea of Nico's life. Also, the tone of the article could really be improved to make it more neutral overall.