User:Njeanm/Adelle Hazlett/Mgondek20 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? Njeanm
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Njeanm/sandbox

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? Most of them, not Secret Society.
 * 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, just right

Should the Contents follow the Lead?

In the last line there seems to be an extra word, "She was appointed the postmistress in the Michigan Legislature in 1893 and was continued to make..."

Lead evaluation
The Lead gives a clear overview of who M. Adele Hazlet was and what she should be known for. Would like to know what the “M” in her name stands for.

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? Doesn't appear to be
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Content evaluation

 * Good discussion of Hazlett and her advocacy for suffrage.
 * In the section Secret Society, maybe add an introductory sentence about what Secret Society means, such as that she promoted them or was interested in them or similar.
 * Suggest adding a sentence after the quote in the section, Speech Endorsing Women’s Enfranchisement 1870 with a brief summary of the reaction to the speech if available.
 * Suggest adding a little more detail about the resistance that Hazlett expected in the section, Allen County Suffrage Society Convention.
 * Consider consistently using her first or last name, both are sometimes used.
 * Good addition of links to content, for example, freemasons.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Appears balanced
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
A very good job on keeping everything neutral in the article, reporting factually, without bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They appear to.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, as expected the primary sources, such as the speeches and newspaper articles are from her time period.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Sources include Hazlett’s actual speeches and multiple entries from newspapers at the time.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, except the ISBN in 1, not sure it would work here?

Sources and references evaluation
Looks like a lot of investigation went into finding and reviewing primary sources for this article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
Clear organization of the content on Hazlett's life and work. Table of contents was clear.

Images and Media No images or media added
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?

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? It appears to have a very representative list of sources.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it does link.

New Article Evaluation
A well written new article, with good research to describe her for readers.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it is a New article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good discussion of what she was advocating for, especially through her speeches, with direct quotes and paraphrase.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe publishing this will help identify additional resources, but this content gives a well organized picture of who she was.

Overall evaluation
Great work developing this story of M. Adele Hazlett of Michigan.