User:Reshmijpatel6/Jessie De Priest/Bldansereau 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? Reshmijpatel6
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Reshmijpatel6/Jessie De Priest

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

 * I think the lead could be conciser. I find second sentence oddly phrased. Possibly rephrase as: "Jessie DePriest was the first African American wife of a US Congressman." (<-- is that true?) Third sentence: Possibly be rephrased as something like "She is best known for being involved in the "Tea at the White House" incident where [combine with following sentence]

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

 * Early years => rename as Personal Life?
 * Cut all subheadings, and combine into one paragraph or two.
 * I think the Early Years sections could be rephrased with something like: Little is known about Jessie De Priest's early life. Jessie De Priest (nee Williams) was likely considered Mulatto (link to wiki article about this esp since it's an old racialized term), because her mother Emma Williams was recorded as Mulatto and a housewife [rest of sentence. Rest of paragraph]
 * I do not know what is important/signifcant about Jessie and Oscar De priest's address in Wash DC
 * Tea at the White House
 * Add a "See Main Article" template to reference the main article.
 * Background
 * I don't think this section needs the second or third sentences at all esp. since Oscar has his own page. I think the article should remain mostly about Jessie.
 * Rest of it not present in this draft at this time.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * I think the article might benefit from losing the current third sentence of Tea at the White House > Background: "During Congressman De Priest's tenure, he introduced ... during the Great Depression ... and racial violence, including lynching." I find this line a little more essayist rather than necessary. I also feel like this information is less relevant to Jessie De Priest.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * Everything looks fine to me so far.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation

 * I have discussed this above with other suggestions.

Images and Media
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?

Images and media evaluation

 * Might want to check on whether the picture can be used with prof.
 * As it is, I think it is good.

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

New Article Evaluation

 * 1) Yes
 * 2) Looks well enough.
 * 3) Could use the addition of the "See Main article" template in the Tea at the White House incident. Could do with removal/reintegration of the Notes section within the rest of the article.
 * 4) Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

 * Good, serviceable draft for a new article, needing a bit more completion.
 * Strengths:
 * Template/picture/structure very strong
 * I appreciate the articles linked at the end.
 * Needing improvement:
 * A few sentences could benefit from rewording or rephrasing. The background/early years section could be a little condensed.
 * Article, imo, needs to be more focused on Jessie De Priest and less on her husband.
 * Article does not need the notes section and information in the notes could be reintegrated throughout the article/on the bib page/legacy section.
 * Tea incident subsection needs to be finished.