User:PepperMTC/Ni una menos/Sylvierichards Peer Review

Peer Review Wikipedia Exercise

Your Name: Sylvie Richards

Wiki Username: PepperMTC

I. Which article are you evaluating?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni_una_menos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PepperMTC

II. Evaluate the article

Evaluate the article using the following rubric. Note, you do not need to leave comments for each question. Use the comments boxes to elaborate on notable successes or highlight key shortcomings of the article.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Images and Media
III. Overall impressions

The article is very good so far, but underdeveloped in some parts. The lead from the original article should be cut down and parts should be brought to the body, as it is overly detailed and includes information that is not in the rest of the article. The Criticism section should also be briefly summarized in the lead. Some subsections have not yet been written, but those that have are informative, relevant, and up-to-date information. The subsections can be strengthened with more information, including some taken from the lead, as it has additional information on Peru and Argentina. The Criticism section also needs to be finished with details on journalists’ criticisms. The information is almost all backed up by reliable citations. Many of them are news articles and could use additional peer-reviewed and scholarly articles. One of the strongest parts of the article is its tone and neutrality. It does not appear biased or argumentative and the Criticism section balances the perspectives. It is clear and easy to understand with only a few spelling errors. The article fills an equity gap, as the movement is very important, yet still did not have thorough coverage on Wikipedia.