User:Elizabethrha/Patricia Roberts Harris/Aryellezabala 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? Elizabethrha (article: "Patricia Roberts Harris")
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Patricia Roberts Harris

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't know.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes; the Lead lists Patricia Roberts Harris' major accomplishments and why she is important enough to have her own wikipedia article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It mainly focuses on only her career and doesn't mention her early life, personal life, or death.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and only states the major aspects of Patricia Roberts Harris' life.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I think that everything is relevant except for the sentence in the "Personal life and death" section that states, "Patricia married William Beasley Harris in 1955 after only three months of dating." I don't think that this information is important, especially since it was already mentioned earlier in the article that Patricia married William Beasley Harris on September 1, 1955.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it discusses the entirety of Patricia's life from birth to her death in 1985.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there could be more information related to the sentence that states, "She resigned a month later as Dean of Howard University's School of Law when Howard University President James E. Cheek refused to support her strong stand against student protests." This sentence is confusing for me because earlier in the article, it was stated that while a student at Howard University, "in 1943, she participated in one of the nation's first lunch counter sit-ins." Why was she against student protests when she herself participated in them as a college student? More information is needed on why she had a change of heart, or maybe the statement that she had "a strong stand against student protests" needs to be re-checked.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I think so.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the article only really lists facts about Patricia Roberts Harris' life, not any opinions about her.
 * 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? Not all content is cited - many sentences in the "Career" section do not have a citation after them.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Although the authors include some books in the "Further reading" section, they only really pull from a few encyclopedias (good), newspapers (okay - could be biased), and various websites (might not be reliable). I think they should find more published books and reference sources to pull information from.
 * Are the sources current? Not exactly - the most recent source is from 2012 while the majority of them are from before 2000. However, this might be acceptable, given that Patricia Roberts Harris died in 1985.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few missing punctuation marks (periods, commas), but other than that, no.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, although I think there should be another section for discussing the legacy/memory of Patricia Roberts Harris that she left behind.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. There is an image of what Patricia Roberts Harris looked like, as well as one of her sweraing-in ceremony in 1965 to be the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes - they are both from the public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, and they are near the sections of the article that are relevant to them.

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? I don't know what content has been added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? N/A
 * How can the content added be improved? Like I mentioned before, I think that adding a "Memory/Legacy" section or something like it would be beneficial for discussing the wide-range impact of Patricia Roberts Harris' life and accomplishments.