User:Historicleaf/Arthur Ramos/Sydsor Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Historicleaf


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Historicleaf/Arthur Ramos - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * NA
 * NA

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead section: The lead section contains a concise introductory sentence that is relevant to the subject. All information in the lead section is also included elsewhere in the article. All information in the lead section appears to be up to date and reflective of any changes or additions the author has made to the article.

Content: The content is relevant and up to date. The article meets criteria for the assignment as the subject belongs to an underrepresented population. The article is lacking information in the research section, but it appears that this article is still in progress and that this information is forthcoming. There is no content that does not belong in the article.

Tone and balance: The tone of the article is neutral, which is difficult to pull off considering the nature of the ideologies that the subject of the article challenged through their work. The article does not appear to be biased towards any particular viewpoint, although it does focus on the perspectives of the subject and does not contain very much information regarding opposing views. However I think this is appropriate as it is focusing on the things most relevant to the subject.

Sources and references: The article cites three secondary sources in addition to the primary sources of the author's work. The secondary sources span a wide range of publication dates, with once source published as recently as 2019 suggesting up to date sources. The sources also represent a wide range of authors. Links to sources are functional. The author may wish to review this additional source I found on JSTOR Arthur Ramos: Brazilian Anthropologist (1903-1949) on JSTOR.

Organization: The overall organization of the article flows very well as it goes from broad information to more specific information. There were some minor changes I tried to make in terms of writing style and word choice (e.g., changed adapting to adopting in lead section, hyphenated mixed-race). However, there was a conflict when trying to publish my edits that I could not figure out how to resolve, so I was unable to edit the page.

Images and media: N/A

New article specific review: The article does meet notability criteria and is supported by three secondary sources. The list of sources is fairly exhaustive, although the author may wish to check different databases to see if there are any other sources available. The article resembles other Wikipedia articles and contains links to other pages to make it more discoverable.

Overall impressions: The article appears to still be in progress, but it seems to be accurate, up to date, and about a notable subject who is underrepresented. Strengths of the article include its' organization. Areas for improvement include some copyediting concerns.