User:HollyLovesHistory/Frances Harper/KaiAbiola Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? HollyLovesHistory
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Frances Harper

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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Might be slightly overly detailed, but I think the info included is good and represents the contributions made

Lead evaluation
Overall, the edits and additions made to the lead are great. The lead is still mostly concise and includes a description of the section that you added about her poetry.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, not as far as I can tell
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it does. Although Frances Harper had a relatively well-developed page, there was room for improvements. In addition, this page addresses a woman who falls within a historically underrepresented population.

Content evaluation
All in all, the added content is really meaningful. I could see that you were passionate and knowledgeable about the stuff that you contributed while still maintaining a neutral tone, which was wonderful. The content you added gives a more well-rounded picture of Frances Harper.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, everything was really balanced
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, all the contributions were very neutral

Tone and balance evaluation
Reading through your contributions I was not persuaded one way or another about Frances Harper, which was great. You were able to maintain a neutral tone throughout, but I could still see how knowledgeable you were about the contributions you made. In addition, the contributions you made didn't throw any sections out of balance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * To an extent; for example, Vanguard was referenced to
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, it seems that way.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, for the most part. However, a few of the sources are print sources rather than links so it is difficult to determine how accessible they are.

Sources and references evaluation
All your sources look good. It would be interesting to see if some of the print sources you used have been made available online anywhere with open access.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Your section breakdown was excellent, and you did a really great job of writing in the Wikipedia way. Everything was easy to follow on her page.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
The images you added really enhanced her page. In particular, I think it was really great how you included a picture of one of her poetry books.

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?
 * 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?
 * Yes, most definitely
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the biggest strength of the content added was that about Suffrage. I think you not only successfully used a wide variety of sources but also you took something you were interested in her literature/poetry and made it digestible for the general public.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * My biggest recommendation for future improvements would be to see if it could be possible to get some of your sources onto an online format to make them even more accessible to the average reader.

Overall evaluation
You did a really great job, Holly! I learned so much more about Frances Harper, and you contributed so many meaningful things to her page.