User:Lhoward429/Abby and Thankful Southwick/HaydenDoughty 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? Lhoward429
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lhoward429/Abby and Thankful Southwick

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead reflects all of the content in the article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the intro sentence is very clear
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead introduces each section of the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all of the information in the lead is present throughout the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, nothing is missing and nothing doesn't belong
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, Thankful Southwick was a Women's Rights Activist and a female activist, two of Wiki's underrepresented categories

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are no heavily biased claims
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any position

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the content is backed up by reliable sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources range, but they are fairly current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, several of the authors are female
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is very well written, clear, and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content has one instance where Thankfully was written instead of Thankful. Other than that I didn't find any errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is very well organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, but Lauren is working on possibly getting an image
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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, the notability requirements are met
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The article represents the literature on the subject well, it is a broad compilation of all of the sources
 * 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, it follows similar patterns
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, the article links to others

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * N/A- New article
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is in depth and organized well. It gives a full picture of Thankful's work in the abolition movement and the women's rights movement
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be improved with some small edits and a readthrough just to make sure it's presented the way Lauren wants it to be.