User:Hannahangulo03/Critical race theory/Blythe27 Peer Review

General info
Hannahangulo03
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Hannahangulo03/Critical race theory
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Critical race theory

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Hannah has made 2 main additions to the article, but they are only in the sandbox. I have found no edits that were actually published to the wikipedia page for CRT.

The first one was adding "Critical Race theory takes into account the whiteness that has been set as the standard and is deemed normal. The social and cultural norms that adhere to whiteness give and reinforce the power of the white race. Power that was begun by the white race but kept by our social constructs." to a body paragraph of the article. Because this wasn't published I do not know where this goes exactly, it was hard to find the area where it belongs. Because of this it made it difficult to judge whether this is necessary to add in the scheme of the whole article. I think that this information is relevant to the subject CRT, but the wording just feels very hard to read and not as clear and brief as a lot of information in Wikipedia articles usually are.

The second edit was under intersectionality and it said, "Intersectionality is the notion that allows us to acknowledge that the being of a group is a basis for bias. Still, because we are members of multiple groups simultaneously, such as our race, sex, and class, our identities can change how we each experience that bias." The points here are relevant to the topics discussed under CRT, but using words such as "we" places the author in the article, creating a biased point of view. Taking yourself out of the writing and placing it in third person will create a more unbiased POV.

In addition to these, Hannah only placed one reference in the bibliography and did not include the summary of why the reference is reputable and relevant to the article. Creating a larger base of references allows the editor to be able to cross reference ideas and information with multiple sources before sharing. This makes it harder to spread biased knowledge. While the source looks like a good reputable source, just having one makes it harder to know if the information is updated and accurate.