User:Manweyyyy/Knights of Labor/NotNorwine Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Manweyyyy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manweyyyy/Knights_of_Labor


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Knights of Labor

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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Minor additions, I believe, were added/changed in the lead. The lead covers the above statements accurately, being fulfilling in the correct content, coverage, and conciseness.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

From what I gleaned from the bibliography, including the added source, the content is up to date and accurate. The information added adequately covered content gaps in the Racism and Wages section well as pieces including the Haymarket Riot and the C.A. Hall.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The tone remains intact from the original page, neutral and objective. Good job gang!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

A lot of the sources have already been checked, but of the one this group added, the content is accurate and the link works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I've already mentioned this, but the content added blends well and follows the structure of the article for clear reading ease.

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


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

I don't believe they added any pictures or other media. Disregard this section.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

The content added has been accurate, plot hole filling, and blends well with the base page. Much improved!