User:Luisatolda/Women in the Brazilian Congress/Skmpark Peer Review

General info


Your Name: Sarah Park

Wiki Username: Skmpark

I. Which article are you evaluating?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luisatolda/Women_in_the_Brazilian_Congress?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Brazilian_Congress

II. Evaluate the article

Evaluate the article using the following rubric. Note, you do not need to leave comments for each question. Use the comments boxes to elaborate on notable successes or highlight key shortcomings of the article.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Images and Media
III. Overall impressions

In ~200 words, address the following four questions below.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Include your summaries here and on the author’s talk page.

I found this article interesting and enjoyed how directly it related to our class’s discussions. I believe this article is still a bit undeveloped, but I am excited for you to add content into the sections under Chamber of Deputies, which I believe will help fill out this article. I also would point out that the captions under the images are a bit vague. I would recommend describing what years the images are referring to and what the different colors within them stand for, but I found both really visually appealing. Additionally, it could help to strengthen your article to add citations to each sentence in order to link the facts to valid sources. Grammatically, I found your article concise and easy to read, my only suggestion on this front would be to double check the capitalization of words. You tend to go between capitalizing and not capitalizing “Senate” and “Senator.” I really liked how your introduction wrote out a bit of what the rest of the article would cover, but it did not have the bulk of the article already laid out. I am excited to see the completed article and for everything to be moved out of the Sandbox! Really well done so far!



Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)