User:Emily-Dobbe/Ladies’ New York City Anti-Slavery Society/Lothcatagainstimperialism 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) Emily-Dobbe
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Emily-Dobbe/Ladies’ New York City Anti-Slavery Society

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?
 * YES
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * YES (wow didn't realize that was a requirement)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * NO
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is quite detailed, but not overly so, no.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * YES
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * YES
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I can't really speak to anything missing, but nothing seems out of place. FANTASTIC JOB with the links to other articles!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * YES

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * YES
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * NO
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I wouldn't say so, no. The one thing to keep in mind might be the assumptions made about how participants "felt" or what they "wanted".
 * 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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I mean, I assume so.
 * Are the sources current?
 * YES, (with the exception of Constitution and Bylaws, which are from the period)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It appears to be a mix of men and women authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They do! YAY.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It looks good to me, if a bit wordy at time. But that happens to me a lot too so I don't really judge there.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I could find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the organization is very intuitive and well constructed.

Images and Media N/A
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?
 * YUP
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Might be more extensive, but I can't easily find more sources.
 * 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?
 * Looks like yes!
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * YES GREAT JOB ON THAT

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Honestly you look pretty much done. I know this is due in like 7 hours, so that doesn't surprise me, but still. It's quite long, but you had a lot to say so that makes sense.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Your links are brilliant! That will make the article much easier to find for people.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe an image? I don't know if there's anything out there that meets the requirements though.