User:Jellocoup/Lissa Yellowbird-Chase/Curti485 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jellocoup's group


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jellocoup/Lissa_Yellowbird-Chase?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * n/a

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead Lissa's article is good and informative. I am not sure if the stuff about Carla at the top of the page is just copy-pasted there or if it is meant to be a lead, but if it is, it is out of place and format. The section about Carla should definitely be included in the article, but not at the top where the lead should be.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. You could consider making a separate article for Carla as well, but the information provided about her is still relevant to Lissa's story (I am assuming that disappearance and murder is what prompted the founding of the search organization, but you might want to explicitly say that if you can find a source that quotes Lissa as claiming that)
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I am aware of.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps?
 * Yes, it is an article about an indigenous woman that likely would not otherwise receive this kind of exposure.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content does feel neutral. The part mentioning her felonies was especially well done. I did not feel swayed by the authors to feel differently about her than my own natural inclinations.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't believe so.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * One source is formatted incorrectly and I was not able to access it (the one with the ISBN) but the other were accessible.There are a few uncited claims that need a citation after them. Most of the sources are news sources, so some more peer-reviewed articles would be good if you can find any.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them?
 * I think all of the sources that are used currently are good because the less neutral sources (Facebook and the official website of the search organization) are being used to cite purely factual information from what I can see. The source list is just a little light at the moment and could be helped by adding a few more to it. I think the most relevant source we have used in class would be the podcast we listened to, but I don't know how helpful that would be for your article specifically.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * One author wrote two separate sources, and Facebook and the official search organization cite are likely authored by Lissa herself, so there could be more diversification of authors, but there are several women authors cited which is good.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is clear and easy to read in the main article. The section about Carla is a little difficult to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The only errors I noticed are in the section about Carla.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections int he main article are clearly laid out.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No-you could potentially add an image of her or of the organization logo if you contacted it perhaps?

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved?
 * I think more content can be added to discuss the outcomes/successes the search organization has had to better show what Lissa's impact/importance is to be on Wikipedia.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is well organized, clear, and underrepresented in current Wikipedia articles.

Additional Questions


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources?
 * There are 7 sources, though it could use some more since some are by the same author or primary sources, and none are peer reviewed (except maybe the one I wasn't able to view).
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material?
 * Yes, we discussed the treatment of intersectional women, and our campus is always striving to learn more about Native American heritage as well as treatment because of its history as a boarding school.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article?
 * No. I don't know where you would necessarily make that fit, but you could potentially discuss rates of indigenous women disappearances as compared to national averages.
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further?
 * I definitely think the context Carla brings is important to the article, and as I mentioned above, I think adding some information about the impact of her organization would help this article.