User:Gmcfarl3/Constance Baker Motley/Elleaufrere 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) I am reviewing Gmcfarl3
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gmcfarl3/Constance Baker Motley
 * User:Gmcfarl3/Constance Baker Motley

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I believe it has (though I don't think I can see what is precisely changed from the original or maybe I just do not quite know how). It seems to be much more developed.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it describes the many roles Constance Baker Motley held over her lifetime, which I feel is an effective explanation.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It makes references to things that will be discussed later, but I don't think the exact sections are outlined specifically.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it is all discussed at some point.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I find it very concise, perhaps a little too concise. I think perhaps the Lead could benefit from multiple paragraphs being used to explain the information, even if they are only a sentence or two each.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? It appears to all be relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, as far as I can tell.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel there could be a little more elaboration on her specific legal work and the cases most important to her. As they are hallmark moments in American history I imagine there are a lot of sources discussing them and at least mentioning her role.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I can't find any bias. All the language is straightforward.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? If anything, perhaps towards flattery. But that might be my own opinion because after reading the article I admire her and I can't imagine someone who wouldn't.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Did she do any writing herself? An autobiography of sorts? I sort of wish her voice was more present or at least there was a clear link to where a reader could find it if interested.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I don't think so.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think there is some confusion in the references - the title of the section says Published Works, but I think these are not Motley's works but the references. The secondary sources in this section look effective however.
 * Are the sources current? There seems to be a mix of old and new.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I clicked on a few and they worked for me.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, as far as I can tell the added material seems to be well-written and relevant.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I was able to locate.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think the different topics and shorter sections works well for a description of Motley's life. It is very easy to follow the timeline of her journey. The only recommendation I would make is to break up Early Life and Education. The other sections seem so thoroughly divided that this one might as well be as well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are currently no images on the wikipedia page. If there is no picture of Motley, perhaps a picture from a court case she worked on?
 * Are images well-captioned? See above.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? See above.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? See above.

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? I don't believe this is a new article, so I will refrain from completing this section.
 * 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? It seems more complete, but I feel it could be fleshed out a bit more. Of course, it is a work in progress, and I am sure the author will be able to add a bit more to the latter half of Motley's life.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It seems the sources added recently are in reference to how Motley matters today. While that is not essential and it is important to have primary sources as well - I think it is a good use of modern articles to show relevancy.
 * How can the content added be improved? As I stated, it is definitely on the right track and just needs some fleshing out.

Overall evaluation
Great job so far! I think the film information is a really interesting tidbit.