User:RainZew/Maud Sulter/Catlynml 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? RainZew
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:RainZew/Maud Sulter

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the Lead reflects the new content added on Sulter's heritage, career, and activism.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence is concise, to the point, and describes the article's topic well.
 * 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, the Lead stays focused on the article's topic
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is focused and only contains the necessary information regarding the topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, Rain expanded on Sulter's career section, as well as added a section for Sulter's activism and cultural curation, which was not in the Wikiarticle before.
 * 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, the article emphasizes Sulter's work in Black feminist activism. The Black community, especially Black women, are historically underrepresented within feminism and the arts.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, Rain states the facts neutrally
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think all of the viewpoints in the content, in general, are underrepresented, but I'm assuming that is because the content is still being edited.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content lacks citations, but again, I'm assuming it is still being edited and the sources at the bottom of the page will be added to the content later.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are very up-to-date as the majority of the sources are from 2020, with one being from 2015 and one other being from 1992.
 * 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? Yes, the links to website and the URLs all worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise and clear, but there is a lack of content, the information added is a quick note-style summary.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were minimal grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think once more content is added, some sections like the career and the activism and cultural curation sections could have subsections included that go in greater detail.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Overall, I wouldn't say the article is more completely, but since it seems like Rain is in the process of editing, I think it is definitely on its way to improving the overall quality of the article and making it more complete, based on the information that has been added so far.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are the references to Black representation, activism, and the situating Sulter's influence within the history of feminism.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by adding more details, better structuring of the layout, and adding citations.

Overall evaluation
I think this article is coming along really well!