User:McKenzie Funk/Lizzie Magie/KeiraDig Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? McKenzie Funk
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:McKenzie Funk/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, there's the inclusion of two descriptors corresponding to added sections.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes! Maybe take out the abolitionist part since you don't touch on that as much but it's still true so I think it makes sense.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The abolition part but only mildly.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel like it is the right amount of detailed -- it's not incredibly concise but I don't think that's an issue.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the political activism section especially adds a new aspect to Magie's identity.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * As far as I can tell, yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I would suggest adding the "Land Lord's Game" section as a subheading under the "Life and Works" heading, just because I feel like it fits in there and is not specifically a different category of her life like the other headings are.

==== Content evaluation -- I think the content added is very relevant and also interesting! I'm sure there are more gaps that could potentially be filled in content-wise, but I'm not sure how easy that information is to find and the information you have added I think makes the article a lot better. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it seems unbiased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think you speak about feminism/abolitionism/georgism in a very factual way that accurately represents those viewpoints! I don't think there's any reason you'd need to offer counterpoints bc they just aren't relevant to her.
 * 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?
 * Yes, many sources are added
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Given that Magie is a pretty old figure, I assume reliable information isn't super easy to find on her (it hasn't been for my topic), and I really liked the incorporation of the National Women's History Museum!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Yes, very much so.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * In the lead there's one place that you've added information where I think you forgot to put a space between words! But other than that all good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes! I appreciate that you actually edited the table of contents.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Absolutely! I think the addition of political activism is VERY necessary and relevant, as is the more detailed description of her game.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Easy to understand, well-sourced, provides a more complete picture of Magie.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe putting the Land Lord's Game heading under Life and Works, like I said earlier, maybe adding more about her abolition work?