User:Margo.C.45/Ernesta Bordoni/Sam.Herrera234 Peer Review

General info
(Margo.C 45)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Margo.C.45/Ernesta Bordoni
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * n/a

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, it has been. It delivers a short and concise summary of the importance of the outcast.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. it provides the necessary info needed to introduce the lead section.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It references her legacy and the importance of her case, but a sentence about Zannino and Ferrero would be good to include in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The legacy about the anthropological case is not included, nor is the criminology ties.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is pretty concise. Maybe another two sentences would be helpful for the reader.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content covers her life chronologically, and I am sure by the final draft the legacy and further history about the outcast will be written.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The missing content would be more about the legacy of the outcast and what their life has to do with the criminology cases.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It deals with the equity gap of women in the 19th century Italy. It shows how the outcast dealt with difficulties and oppression by the society in the time period she was living in.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content, for the most part, is neutral. It would be helpful if another article was used and cited just as much as the first two that are cited predominantly. This would make the article more neutral and add additional context.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no such claims, but it would be helpful for the neutrality of the article if two more references were added and utilized to provide more balance to the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoint of reference two is used much more than the other references. Maybe the other references that provide the same info could be utilized to add more information and depth to the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I would say that I noticed the article kept the same tone and position throughout the article and did not try to discredit another viewpoint.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * They are all referenced correctly in the references section.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * From my brief reading of references one and two, I can say their content lines up correctly with the content presented in the article. For the other two references, they are used enough for me to make a conclusion.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The other sources are length subject matters with considerable information related to the outcast or the legacy of the person. From my searches online, the sources are representative of the best available sources because of the lack of thorough material about Ernesta Bordoni.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Three of the sources are current, but one of them is from the 19th century which is fine for reference and context.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources have an even split of women and men authors so both genders are represented. The more current sources included representation on the marginalized figure of the women and the prostitute in the 19th century.
 * 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.)
 * Base off a quick search online, I did not find better sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The current articles have IBSNs that work correctly and I assume the older source does not have an IBSN.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content was written well that I was able to follow until the end.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There was not any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is broken down chronologically, which effectively communicates the major points.

Images and Media
If your peer added images or media: N/a


 * 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?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * It does have 4 reliable sources in the reference page.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list of sources is enough to represent the available literature because there is not much current material on the subject.
 * 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?
 * It does.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * It provides effective links

Overall impressions: It is a new article

 * 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?