User:Cindydang1212/Minneola Ingersoll/Nnaja003 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) Cindydang1212
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Minneola Ingersoll

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe there could be another sentence added to the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content follows the life of Minneola Ingersoll in a concise way.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the articles are recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There could be more content added to the sections, but since this is only a draft, it is too early to say.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it deals with the project Women In Red.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the tone is neutral and does not show bias. It only provides factual information.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are 5 citations used.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I do not believe they do.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the text is easy to follow and the sentence structure is proper. The text is not intricate.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are 5 cited sources, which I believe is enough for this article and the information provided.
 * 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.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Since this is a new article, I believe it has discussed the topic well. The life of the woman presented is described in as much detail as possible, and the sources offer relevant information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? That they are linked to other relevant articles, which makes it easier to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps the Labor Activism section and Lead section could be more detailed. Accessing some of the links, it seems that there is more information that could be added.