User:Celinewherritt/Disability rights movement/Miaecampbell 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? Celinewherritt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Celinewherritt/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead section for this article generally seems to have the type of information that I would expect from an introduction to the topic, and is the correct length for this section of the article. However, I think that it could be restructured a bit in order to be more effective. It looks like you plan to dedicate the first couple of sentences in this section to defining what the Disability Rights Movement is. However, the way that these two sentences exist right now is a bit confusing to me; it looks like rather than defining this movement, you are defining or describing the violation of the rights of people with disabilities. I would suggest that you change the wording here a bit to define the movement itself, perhaps as a response to the issue that you've already described (ie. The Disability Rights movement is a response to cases in which people with disabilities have their rights violated). I think the rest of the paragraph contains a lot of interesting ideas and information that you talk about later in the article, but you could bring these seemingly disparate ideas together a bit better by explaining that solving these three issues is the goal of the movement, or something along those lines.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
I think the sections you've laid out to organize this article are well laid-out and relevant to the topic. My main critiques are more specific to the structure and information in each section. First, I think the historical section has all the right information in it, but the way that the information is presented could be improved. Starting the first sentence of this sentence with a fact about FDR's presidency, while interesting, seems a bit random and out of context. Instead, I might move the fourth sentence of the paragraph (or something similar) to the beginning to create a better lead in to the rest of your paragraph. For instance, you could explain the challenges faced by people with disabilities at the time (no gov't or organizational support), and then talk about how FDR's refusal to be publicized in a position of vulnerability is an example of how these stigmas affected even the President of the United States/people in positions of power. You could also mention here that his ability to become president despite this stigma marked a turning point in the movement, and then go into the beginnings of activism. The second paragraph in this section looks good, but I would take out the last piece, where you talk about information that "will be detailed more in the Group Activism section."

I like the way that you broke down the Debates/Approaches section into pieces, and I think each paragraph provides useful and relevant information. For this part of the article, I would just advise you to expand on the first paragraph a bit, and to restructure the way you transition from one point to another. You mention in the first paragraph that a debate exists regarding affirmative action versus equitable treatment, and although you have integrated facts about the employment of people with disabilities, you haven't really fleshed out the arguments that are made by each side in this debate.

The first couple sentences of the legal section are a bit unclear to me. I don't really understand the link that you're making in the first sentence between the health care sector and the legal sector, and the article that you mention in the second sentence doesn't seem super connected to the rest of what you're saying. I would focus more on providing information about specific laws (like the American Disability Act), and then linking these laws to the overall goals of the movement.

For the Group Activism section, I would suggest similar edits to those that I talked about in the Historical section. I think you jump into TASH a bit quickly and without context-- I would recommend that you say something like "there are several main organizations in the U.S. that advocate for disability rights in the U.S. today" or something like that, and then give a couple of examples (including TASH). Then you can talk about TASH specifically and why they're an important part of the movement.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Pretty much all of the content in this article seems to be written in a neutral and unbiased way. The one sentence that I did see as potentially having some bias/attempt at persuasion is in the first section, where you write that "it is important to include the extent to which they can be active participants in a solution." I agree with this sentiment, but the way you phrased this sentence makes it sound too much like an assertion that you are trying to make about the subject.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I see that you have cited many sources, and it seems like all of the information is backed up by a source. However, I don't see that you have linked the sources that you placed in parentheses to the bibliography at the bottom.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
As mentioned in the "content" section, I think that your organization of information through each section is effective and easy to follow. Good job!

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


 * 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
N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation
Your article definitely has enough scholarly support to meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements, and seems to cover a good amount of literature on the subject. In order to make it more discoverable, I would add links to other articles, like one for the American Disability Act.

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 you're definitely on the right track to creating a great new article, and I think it's a really important subject to write an article on. As I mentioned in previous sections, I think my main suggestions have to do with the restructuring of information, and maybe a little bit of additional information in some spots.

Hi Mia,

I know we spoke via email, but I wanted to officially address your feedback on Wikipedia. Thank you for your insightful feedback, I accounted for these comments and edited further here. I rearranged a lot of my information to make more sense, and I improved my sources by making them more discoverable and removing the MLA format. Thanks! ~