User:Catason/Annie Lee Cooper/Jimmerferdet32 Peer Review

General info
Catason
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Catason/Annie Lee Cooper
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Annie Lee Cooper

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the update that your group added to the lead was a nice detail to add to the lead. Especially since most people will decide how in depth they want to go into this article is determined by the lead.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first senteince of the lead is giving us the information we are looking for.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, however it covers vital details for what is to come, and since the article isnt crazy long it does not need a longer lead than you gave it.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic? No, a lot of your groups minor edits were adding detail that should have already been included in the article. Specially the second minor edit you have, every one of those details in that statement are information that I would want to know if I was reading about Annie Lee Cooper

Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all of the references used were from the last 7 years, which is good for an article on someone who was born in 1910.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the civil rights movement is undeniably one of the most crucial era's in the history of United States, however with time a lot of information has been lost or hidden.

Tone and balance

The neutrality of the content that was added is beneficial to the overall article, not adding anything outside of known facts.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, really liked that you included the part about her employment struggle in Selma because, unless I missed it, that was not mentioned enough inn the original article

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes, it was definitely leaning towards the side of integration, which is objectively and morally the correct stance. So in this case is great!

Sources and References

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, I checked a bunch of links, and had no issues

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, Jstor definitely provided you with some of their best work.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, a lot of the information can be easily found in the

Are the sources current? Yes, currency isn't as important since her impact already achieved its goals.

Organization
The only grammatical error I found was on your fourth minor edit you have, "register to vote in 1963 resulted in her being fired from her job as a nurse at a rest home which was a White-owned rest home known as the Dunn Rest home. . She then". Which is a small thing that will be an easy fix just erase one of the periods. But other than that the content is all well written and easy to understand.

Images and Media
The article does not have any images in it, a visual is nice to have but I am unsure about the process of getting one on there, however it is still a good article without any images.

Overall impressions
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, your additions are adding details and information that needs to be in an article about Annie Lee Cooper, it is surprising that some of these details were missed prior to now in this article.

How can the content added be improved? It could be beneficial to site your sources more throughout all of your edits, there is only two citations throughout all of your edits so things could get weird with plagiarism.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting