User:Carolyn15/Hilda Tweedy/Lizvillegas 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) Carolyn15
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Hilda Tweedy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, i was not able to tell which content was hers.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, an intro sentence is clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, there is no breakdown if the article's sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think there is sufficient evidence to cover the topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content about what the organization fought for was relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, everything belongs.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does deal with historically underrepresented topics regarding females.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part, the content is neutral however there is a statement I feel is leaning towards a particular side. It reads, "The merger "strengthened our feminist convictions" explained Tweedy."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, no heavily biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would suggest adding more of her contributions and childhood as many wikipedia articles provide background information about individuals.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I felt well informed rather than persuaded.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, you have reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They all reflect the literature of the topic.
 * Are the sources current? I was unable to determine the currency of some of the articles even when clicking on them.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, they are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Only the first source did not work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, all the content is straight to the point.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling errors but you are missing a comma after the quotation stating, "strengthened our feminist convictions."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes as of now content is organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the image is very relevant and so is the caption.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the caption is suitable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes image is appropriate.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the image is laid out in an 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, your contributions strongly helped the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? You provided the abbreviation to not sound repetitive.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would suggest adding a contents to guide you in adding more information. Overall, you're doing a great job!

Overall evaluation
Great contributions so far Carolyn! Continue to add more references and make positive and helpful edits(: