User:De.small1/Alicia Garza/Piepe074 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? (De.small1, Will5590, LukieW, Viki.vick)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Alicia Garza

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? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

==== Lead evaluation: there are topic in the lead that are not covered within the article itself, namely Alicia Garza organization around rights for domestic workers and violence against trans and gender-nonconforming people of color. I realize that my peers are not the ones adding this information, but it is left out of the article. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I can see
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

==== Tone and balance evaluation: " Alongside her desire for reproductive equality, Garza considered herself a queer social justice activist and a Marxist." This sentence feels too much like an opinion, or too heavily opinion based. I'm not sure how to fix it though. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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?

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
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

==== Overall evaluation: I'm glad that some of her activist works were included, but I think that more should be there. Maybe filling in the missing pieces from the lead. The content that was added is very interesting and adds to Alicia Garza's story and importance. ====