User:Hcooper799/Naomi Chapman Woodruff/Klcrawford2021 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Hcooper799)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Naomi Chapman Woodruff
 * Naomi Chapman Woodruff

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Hannah! Here's my peer review for you,

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes it is. The content is appropriate and fits within the standards of Wikipedia.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Further details of her death would be a nice addition (if available) to the Death section of the article.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes the tone seems to be neutral. I'm not sure if quotes from family are relevant, but that could possibly be seen as "biased."

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - I find the sourcing part to be the hardest thing and can't say that I really know what I'm talking about here, but I see that there is a flag on the article saying that the content may be deleted if more sourcing is not added... so this might be something to focus on. I would provide more reliable references as soon as possible.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? To my knowledge your sources seem to be appropriate and you are representing them well in the context of the article.
 * Are the sources current? - One of them is from 2003 I believe so I would consider that "current." The other two are questionable depending on your idea of "current."

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clear, but could be given better wording to add to the readability, such as changing "She was instrumental to the development... to "She was instrumental in the development."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I could not find any spelling or grammatical errors, though this is not my strong suit.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the sectioning is well done and you seem to have given even weight to each section.

Overall impressions


 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is typical of what any other bibliography would include and you're at a good starting point. I think adding a little more information to each section will give the article a fuller feel, obviously that is if you can find more information to supplement with.