User:Hestera nmac3108/Draft:Edith Jacqueline Ingram Grant/Jmshepp912 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) Hestera nmac308's
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Edith Jacqueline Ingram Grant

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 just gives a brief summary of the person
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, but it could have more details in it

Lead evaluation
The Lead is good. I would just add a little more information to get a brighter light on this person.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, Most of the references are from 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything seems like they belong right where they need to be
 * 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 given is great. It has a great flow as it goes from one topic to the next.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It seems that the content is good and has wonderful reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It doesn't seem like it
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are great and do a wonderful job giving good information to the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
Even though It may be difficult to get an image on wikipedia but it would be a great source to put inside to match a face with the information.

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? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
It has an appreciate links for the article and has great backup up sources so it could be reliable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it added much needed information to bring the article to life.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It adds character to the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Adding more information would make the article seem filled and not some parts of the article be empty.

Overall evaluation
The Overall evaluation of this article is that it a great article with little information to find but it was put together well established.