User:EmilyMeeds/Sarah Louisa Forten Purvis/YamYamRulez Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

EmilyMeeds


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilyMeeds/Sarah_Louisa_Forten_Purvis?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sarah Louisa Forten Purvis

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

Very good lead section! I see you added a lot of important points to your draft that are missing in the current version. You didn't cite the lead section, is there a source that you can add? The lead is concise and includes an introductory sentence that summarizes the article's topic. I feel like you can add a few sentences to your lead about your major sections such as her written work, feminist contributions and misattributions of work. It doesn't have to be a lot, just a a sentence or two that summarizes those sections in the lead.

Content:

Content is relevant to the topic and up to date (includes both current and older sources, very well rounded sources). I don't think that it is missing content or includes content that shouldn't belong. I think that this addition to the current article is very valuable and adds important information that was missing previously. It fills Wikipedia's content gaps because it gives a voice to marginalized Black women artist/poets.

Tone and Balance:

Content is written in a neutral way which doesn't contain any bias or any attempt to persuade the reader to take a certain perspective. I don't think there is any section that is under-represented. However, I think that you unnecessarily repeat yourself when you talk her pen name and misattribution of works. Maybe the section under the chart in the written works section and the misattribution of works section can be combined? I think that this would make the article more clear and prevent you from repeating yourself.

Sources and References:

I am very impressed by the breath of you sources! It contains a lot of academic sources from journals as well as published books. Sources are also thorough.

Just some small feedback:

Your source #8 on your bibliography takes to to the u of a libraries section. Any non university student will not have access to this article through this think. Is there another link/ a DOI that you can put here instead?

If you can, I would cite the information from the lead, first sentence of education section, and the misattribution section. I understand that this is info that was included by the previous Wikipedia editor, but maybe you have found sources to back up these sections and make it stronger?

Organization:

I think that your article is concise and clear! There are some small grammar things to fix:

- your capitalization of the word black (as in Black women, Black sisters) isn't consistent. The proper way to capitalize this is to capitalize the word black when you are referring to people, just as you would with any other group of people (ex: Indigenous woman, Polish woman).

- be consistent use the word "antislavery", you use the forms: antislavery, anti slavery, and anti-slavery throughout the article. Choosing one form would make it more cohesive. I think the proper way to write this is anti-slavery.

Images and Media:

Are there any images of your person? I know it was really hard for me to find a picture that I could use so I understand the struggle. Maybe if you have some before the next draft you can focus on that?

Overall Impressions:

Wonderful article that greatly improves the current article! I thought that your addiction to the current article does a wonderful job to enhance the article. I think it's really cool that you've found so much more things to say about this person, and great things too! I really like you addition of the table. It catalogues all of her works in a really orderly way. What I would focus your time on is: finding a picture, improving your capitalization in the parts that I noted, and combining the sections were you talk about pen names and misattributions so you don't repeat yourself.

Thank you for peer-reviewing my article and for your patience while I review yours!

YamYamRulez :)