User:EmilyLiddell/Elizabeth Cutter Morrow/MORGANV15 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? Emily Liddell
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:EmilyLiddell/Elizabeth Cutter Morrow

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? No, it more so introduces the early/family life section rather than including the other sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Good. I would suggest having less about her children (it seems more like an intro to the family section) and having it structure the rest of the article by explaining the flow of topics.

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? The content rounds out the article a great deal more than it originally was, and all the content seems relevant and like it belongs in each section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Content evaluation
THe content is very strong; compared to the other sections, her legacy contains less information, but I don’t know how else you would flush that information out. If there are other facts about her post-death impact, I would suggest including them.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content all appears to be neutral, even the section on Elizabeth Cutter Morrow’s legacy -- which can be difficult to do with a legacy section if the author feels strongly about the legacy of the biographee. However, you did a very nice job stating the facts of Elizabeth Cutter Morrow’s life from a neutral standpoint.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I could not find any
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Generally, Elizabeth Cutter Morrow’s life seems to be presented in a way that reveres her, but not in a glorifying way (if that makes sense). I wouldn’t say there was an over- or underrepresented viewpoint on either end.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I didn’t perceive the content to be persuasive of anything or to possess an biased agenda

Tone and balance evaluation
It is neutral in tone and keeps the balance of information presented without being too concise or too wordy.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Everything is cited and ties back to the bibliography sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources compile information various aspects of Elizabeth Cutter Morrow’s life and thus reflect the literature available on her life
 * Are the sources current? The sources are most likely as current as they can be for a stub article -- most are within 20 years old
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good. You seem to have a lot of sources about their time in Mexico, but I understand that for this project, we take information where we can get it.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Very much so -- it is easy to read, possesses good flow, and presents the information clearly
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is a pronoun error (I assume a typo) where Morrow is referred to as “he” in the education section. Other than that, I did not find any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
I greatly appreciated the layout and structure of the article and the chronological flow of information by heading.

Images and media evaluation
No images were added

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Very much so
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content supplements the bare skeleton of detail in the original article, and does so in a clear, unbiased, informative manner.
 * How can the content added be improved? The only thing I would say is to adjust the lead of the article -- have it more thesis-ish by laying out the framework of the rest of the article (by heading or something).

Overall evaluation
This is a really strong article that rounds out Elizabeth Cutter Morrow’s life nicely, but it could use a clearer lead that summarizes her entire life rather than just her children.