User:C.pinkston/Draft:Dorothy Cowser Yancy/AutumnMM97 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) I am reviewing the article, Dorothy Cowser Yancy that C.pinkston made for the class.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Dorothy Cowser Yancy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead gives a brief overview about Yancy.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is about Yancy, an African American Women
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead dose not, but there is a content section that lists all the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is detailed and to long.

Lead evaluation
The lead has good information within, but it goes into more depth than should.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content, is not up to date, because the sources that were used ranged from 2002 to 2017. There are not any current sources with current information being used.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Under the "Personal Life" section there is only two sentences. This section  needs to be worked on by adding more information or taken out.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it is about an African American women.

Content evaluation
Overall. the content was good, but not up to date. The content also needs to be more organized into paragraphs instead of placed on page.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the article is telling the facts without adding any personnel afflictions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, her "Career" section is even about her accomplishments in Georgia Institute of Technology, congress, CIAA and  Morehouse College
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article has a nice balance of facts within the article with citations.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all information came from reliable secondary sources, because some came from News outlets such as The Undefeated Today, CISON PR Newswire, The Charlotte observer. One source came from Wikipedia.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The source, "Secrets of the Presidential Turn Around Artist". Black Issues in Higher Education, looks like it'll be a good source, but when I click on, ISSN 0742-0277 it dose not take me to directly to the article.
 * Are the sources current? No, they range from 2002 to 2017.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links within article worked. However, couple links in the "Reference" section took me to a EBSCO error page where I could not look at the article.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources and references needs better sources because not all article were reliable. Some of the sources were out of date as well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is easy to read, but I would organize it into paragraphs to make it flow better.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None, that I can or tell.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Information is organized under the appropriate sections, but the information is not organized very well.

Organization evaluation
Information is clear under each section, but the information is not broken down. The paragraph that is presented within each section contains numerous information, it should be broken down into separate paragraphs.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? NA
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

Images and media evaluation
NA

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? More relevant literature should be found on Yancy, because the latest source is from 2017, making it 3 years old.
 * 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? When, comparing to other articles, this article follows their pattern. Only resource it is lacking is a picture of Yancy.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation
This article follows the new article criteria guidelines.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content of the article needs more information on the subject, some sections such as "Personal life" feels incomplete. While, the "Honors" sections needs to be redone, because it feels as it it has been throw into the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the article is that it is easy to understand information within.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content needs to be broken down into paragraphs, instead of clumped together.

Overall evaluation
The article's content is well written, organized into sections with sources. However, the content needs to be broken down with reliable sources, and links needs to be fixed.