User:Elizabethrha/Patricia Roberts Harris/KaiAbiola Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Elizabethrha
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Elizabethrha/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but the first sentence could be made a little more clear in terms of format.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead includes brief descriptions of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not include information that is not present in the article, but I think a sentence regarding her unsuccessful run for mayor could possibly be added to the Lead. In addition, it might be useful to add a sentence about her being inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame in the Lead as well.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the Lead is concise, but I feel like it's missing some crucial information about her life that is mentioned later on in the article like the two pieces of information I mentioned above.

Lead evaluation
Overall, when editing the article, not much needs to be done to the Lead. I think it is in really good shape right now, but it could be made better with the addition of other important pieces of information about her life. In addition, I think there is always room for improvement in any Lead in making sure it is truly concise, and I think it would be good to read over it again and see if any sentences can be made more clear and concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? No content has been added as of yet, but I think the information in your sandbox will be helpful in making the article more clear, concise, and accurate.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It seems that way. Even though it is a reputable source, the New York Times article was from quite a few years ago. I noticed that in the bibliography you created there are some relatively recent sources, which I think will be great for ensuring that the content is up-to-date as you continue to add to the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think the content you have added so far will be great in making parts of the article more concise. I don't know if there is any content that is necessarily missing, but it would be useful to see what can be added to each section that is already there. In addition, depending on what's out there, a legacy section could possibly be added to the article.

Content evaluation
I think the content that will be added to the article will be helpful in making sure that her story is told more completely. Additionally, the additions so far seem to be making the article more concise, clear, and overall easier to read, which I think will significantly improve the article. I am also very interested to see what new information will be added to the article as well, especially in regards to her legacy.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes because the content being added works to make parts of the article more factual and concise.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Since there are two somewhat opposing viewpoints you've come across, it might be useful to include them both to make sure the article remains neutral. I'm not entirely sure whether or not this is a "some people believe this and others believe that" kind of situation or if it's more of a "one source is more factual and reliable than the other" situation, but I think it's worth taking a look at to make sure the article remains as neutral as possible.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think so far the additions you are planning on making are neutral and don't seem to be heavily biased toward a particular position, which is a really great start to making sure that in the end the article will be Wikipedia approved. Since the work done so far has been good at maintaining neutrality, I think you'll have no problem maintaining that neutrality throughout any other additions you make to the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the part that will be updated is backed up by a New York Times article. For the part that is being added to the intro, I'm not really sure if that is being backed up by the same source cited in the original article or by a new secondary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? By looking at the bibliography, the sources seem thorough, and I think they will be helpful in adding new information to the article as well as clarifying and backing up old information.
 * Are the sources current? Right now, it seems like there is a good mix of current and historical sources. However, it might be useful to see if there are any more current sources out there.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the links I checked do work, which will be great when it comes to citing the new content that will be added to the article.

Sources and references evaluation
I think the bibliography you made seems like it will be good in regard to assisting you in finding new information to add to the article as well as updating and verifying the information that is already there. I think a few of the sources will also be helpful in adding more pictures to the article, which I think would be a great addition. It might be helpful to also see if you can find more current sources to help add to the content of the article as there may be room to add new sections with this information.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content that will be added is understandable and relatively clear and concise. I do think there could be room for improvement in making sure the content added or clarified is easy to read, specifically in regard to some of the changes that will be made in the intro. In addition, I would recommend making sure the part that will be added to make the info in career more factual is as clear, concise, and easy to read as you can make it.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I was able to tell which parts were being referred to in your sandbox, and I think when it gets added to the article itself it will reflect the major points of each topic that you are either revising or adding to.

Organization evaluation
I think the organization of the additions is easy enough to follow, and if you follow a similar format I think the overall organization of the article will be good. It could be helpful to read over the entirety of the article as well as your additions to make sure the article is as concise, clear, and easy to read as possible. In addition, as you place each of your additions into its respective section, I think the overall organization of your article will be great.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think the article is somewhat more complete as one of the additions has made the article more factual. In addition, I think the edits made to the first part of the introduction has the potential to improve the conciseness of the article on a whole.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added has helped parts of the article either become more clear and concise or more factual, which is a great strength to have.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think it would help to take a look at the content again and make sure that it is remaining neutral, clear, concise, and as easy to read as possible. Also, it may be useful to see how the content already included can be backed up by more reputable sources or more current sources.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think the edits you have made so far have done a great job at clarifying various points of her life. I am looking forward to seeing the other improvements that you will continue to make to the article.