User:C.pinkston/Draft:Dorothy Cowser Yancy/Jmshepp912 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) Dorthy Cowser Yancy created by C.pinkston for the class
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Dorothy Cowser Yancy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead has beed edited by peers adding relevant content to the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but it does give a glimpse of sub sections they could talk about.
 * 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 overly detailed, its too compact with information that could be given in later sections.

Lead evaluation
Its a great start just needs to be shaved so some information can be saved for later.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? From the sources that are listed which date from 2002-2019, I would say its up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There isn't any missing content just some headings don't need to be made because there isn't enough information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? An African American Women.

Content evaluation
The content is good just needs to be revised so it there wouldn't be so many gaps inside the article and everything can look concise.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Neither the viewpoints just show what she has done and what she has earned throughout the course of her life.
 * 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 does a great job having a neutral stand point on the women.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all content can be reliable that was used as a source for the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? One source is from 2019
 * 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? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources and references could be better. Like for instance not having a newsletter for one of the sources. Finding an article with creditable persons would be good.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clear, I would just clean it up a bit.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't see any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It broken down too much. some sections have little information that can be put somewhere else.

Organization evaluation
The writing and grammar is clear just needs to have some information placed somewhere else or taken out.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media. Did not add


 * 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
Did not add images nor media to the article.

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? No, I believe their could be more literature to be found to gather more information.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
Find more literature to put more relevant information inside the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No, just needs some revisions then it would be complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths is how its put together. Sure some headings aren't necessary but it shows what they wanted to cover throughout the article
 * How can the content added be improved? Simplify the article.

Overall evaluation
The overall feelings toward the article is that it is a good start and has great information, but there are some corrections that could help this article be better. Like for instance adding more reliable sources and adding pictures to match the words and formatting to make it flow better.