User:Nanilaw/Inez Beverly Prosser/Cheebk44 Peer Review

The "Lead" has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer, but sandbox was properly utilized and changes were made to the existing article as we were instructed. The content added was relevant to the article and was relevant to Dr. Prosser's story. I appreciate that the editor took time to address date discrepancies, typos, and clarify some of the arguments made by Prosser in defense of segregated education for black children. The editor made these changes in a style consistent with the previous authors of this article. The editor's changes are also neutral and satisfy the ethics of Wikipedia's community guidelines. The editor more so clarifies existing information, but includes sources to back up her edits when necessary. The added image of Inez Beverly Prosser in cap and gown is appropriate and properly cited. The strength of the article is also seen in 16 diverse sources. Overall, I think that the editor did a exceptional job of clarifying Prosser's history and strengthening the overall quality of this article.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)