User:Mgondek20/Christine Navarro Paul/Njeanm 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? Mgondek20
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mgondek20/Christine Navarro Paul

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise.

Lead evaluation

 * Overall the lead is concise and neat but you might want to add a bit more from your sections, maybe something from her early or later life. It is a bit short but you can easily fix that.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes it does

Content evaluation

 * There is a nice even spread of information and you cover the process of basket making, her role in it, and both of their roles in the community thoroughly
 * I know you haven't finished formatting yet so I'm assuming you'll have links to add in
 * There are some sentences with awkward wording that you might want to go through and fix
 * ex: "Chitimacha young girls and women learned to weave baskets from the river cane... and gathering wild plants." (Early Life) (the tense changes from past to present)
 * ex: "It was a double-woven, large, lidded basket which had taken 2 women weeks to produce." (Marketing the baskets) (the wording is just a little awkward and you might want to write out the word two)
 * Other than that, I think you have a lot of really good information in here and it was nice to read!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * There are some parts that need to be a bit more neutral, i.e. try not to use words like "Unfortunately" in the early life section
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It seems evenly spread out
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Overall, you do a nice job of keeping it mostly neutral but I think you should go through and try to take out words that put emotion in if that makes sense (like unfortunately or very, etc).
 * You also use passive voice throughout it (I have that problem all the time so I get it) so just try to take out the "may's and "might"s unless it is necessary. (its mostly in the beginning of the article)

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * You use the Usner article for the majority of the article but I'm not sure how much you could find on Christine. I cannot see them either but I'm assuming that they are reliable especially since one of them is their own website.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * In doing a quick search, I could not find much about her but I did find the Usner article so I would say that they reflect literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No links yet

Sources and references evaluation

 * It's a bit Usner heavy right now but I'm not sure what you can really do about that.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes it flows together nicely
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are some sentences that have awkward wording.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is organized well.

Organization evaluation

 * I know you aren't done with formatting so I won't put anything about that but otherwise it flows nicely right now.

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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There are 3 that I can see. There's probably other information on Christine Navarro Paul but I'm not sure how easy it is to access it.
 * 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?
 * The version I am looking at does not have an info box but the sandbox version does. Again the formatting is not finished so I can't speak on it.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No links yet

New Article Evaluation

 * It looks good!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * It is an actual article now so I would say it's improved.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * You have evenly dispersed information and have given a voice to a story that is not on wikipedia yet.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * See the above sections

Overall evaluation
Overall I think it looks good! You just need to review your work to fix any grammar/passive voice. I really enjoyed reading your article and I look forward to seeing it completed!