User:Jewon420/User:CathrynGuzzwell/sandbox/Carson Biddulph 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)
 * Jewon420 Cathryn Guzzwell
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:CathrynGuzzwell/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead does a great job of providing an overview without giving too much detail. You could consider mentioning religious involvement in your lead as it is a central idea in your article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the last sentence is a good introductory sentence. As stated above it could be modified to include religious involvement in women's suffrage.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not all of the article's major sections (as stated above)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead is concise.

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?
 * Not to my knowledge

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The only gray area that I can think of is the statement: "These women's work paved the way for the passing of the 19th amendment and freedoms for women for years to come." I know that this particular statement has a source to back it up but it might be worth considering the rephrasing of this sentence so that it isn't quite as strong.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are a couple of parts in which the sources are a little bit scarce, particularly in the first paragraph under the subheading: "Suffrage"
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * You only have 2 sources that were published later than 2000. It might be worthwhile to find one more source that is a little bit more recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I found couple of typos in the first paragraph that are easy to clean up: "presiding over their farms and a family members". On the whole the article is easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * As mentioned above
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Your subheadings are every well done which made the paper easy to follow and understand

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

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?
 * The article could use a few more sources to fill in the spaces that need support
 * 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, but there could be a few more links added to topics such as the amendments that are mentioned or the National American Women's Suffrage Association.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * organization was easy to follow
 * you were able to keep the article neutral which must be challenging in such a politically charged topic
 * the content always pertained to your article and there were no missing pieces or extra details
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Content can be improved by giving a brief overview of each of your subheadings in the lead paragraph of the article. Also there is a typo in the lead paragraph
 * A couple more sources (preferably recent ones) would help fill in the gaps in which sources are needed. (the first paragraph under Suffrage and the first paragraph under Church Involvement)
 * A few more links to other wikipedia articles such as the amendments and certain women's associations that were formed in this period.