User:Nqm5156/Kendall School Division II for Negroes/Parisgap Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nqm5156/Kendall School Division II for Negroes


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Nqm5156/Kendall School Division II for Negroes


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Wow, this page looks like it belongs on wikipedia! The sources are extensive and varied, and the amount of detail on the page is fantastic. You've done a fantastic job!

Here's my review:

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, although I think the first sentence could be shortened and combined with the second.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? In a sense. I think the lead could be shortened to be more concise, as it seems to provide detail that is then repeated in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything is covered.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? As mentioned earlier, I think the lead could benefit from some trimming, or else formatting into smaller paragraphs. It seems to be a brick of text that is longer than expected for a lead.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, incredibly relevant and detailed!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think everything is relevant, and the sections do a good job of allowing the reader to skim to pick out what they want, or to read it all if they wish.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes! Fantastic topic, and one I knew nothing about before reading.

Tone/Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, and it's incredibly well-written. There is a great flow to the article that keeps the reader interested.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? N/A
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? N/A
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? N/A

Sources


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? N/A
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) I selected a few sources as a sample and they seemed to confirm!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, incredibly thorough and detailed
 * Are the sources current? Yes!
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Unknown as I did not check every citation, but they come from a variety of sources.
 * 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.) N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, great writing style and good use of sections/headers
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Minor, nit-picky suggestion:
 * Under "Background of Louise Miller": In February of 1952, she never gave up and filed suit against the DC Board of Education, the Kendall School, and DC Public Schools with five other parents.
 * "She didn't give up, and in February of 1952 filed suit..."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, and offers a range of background

Images


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes! If any more could be added, that would further enhance the article (i.e. Photos of Louise & family, if any exist)
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, concise and informative
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, could be a bit bigger if that is possible

For New Articles


 * 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, great job
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes!
 * 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, this looks like it could be a real wiki artcile
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, great job on links

Overall, your article has really inspired me. This is a fantastic example of "what to do right", and I learned a lot. Great job!