User:Reshmijpatel6/User:Marthasjones/sandbox/Elleaufrere 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? (provide username) Marthasjones
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Marthasjones/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? This appears to be a new article, so it appears that a new lead section has been created to reflect Frances Harriet William's contributions.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, I think it delivers a lot of information effectively but concisely.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not particularly, but I am unsure if this is necessary at this point.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It contains information that has not been elaborated on yet, but it is clear that it will from the outline created by Professor Jones
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, it is very concise. Depending on how long the article is generally I think it could be elaborated on. Yet if it is proportional to the article I think it is fine to stay as it is/

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it explains the early life and education of Williams very clear.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? To my understanding it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It appears as if the article is currently in progress, so I assume the information that is currently outlined is being filled in and will result in a fleshed out article. I am also confused by the statement "It was not a good fit" in the education section and feel that it could be elaborated upon.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, except for the strange sentence referenced to above.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I can find.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Again, not particularly in my opinion. Nothing sticks out as a current red flag.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I don't think so. The section about the disagreement with the school might incline a reader to sympathize with William's and not the college, but I think that it is a consequence of our modern understandings and cannot be avoided. But it may be something interesting to think about.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is only one reference currently, so I think more references will be needed to back up all information in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think while the one source appears to be a good start, there is more relevant literature especially primary sources on the subject.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, retrieved only a few days ago.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The one look there works fine when I tried it.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I have no qualms with the tone or sentences currently finished.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I have noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Some of the sections are only outlines at this point, but they seem like a sensible and proportional way to divide up the story of William's life.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are currently no images, but perhaps one can be found after more sources are looked through.
 * Are images well-captioned? See above.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? See above.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? See above.

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? I believe this is a new article, but I think at this point it does not meet this requirement as their is only one source linked at the bottom of the article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It could be more exhaustive and I am certain there is more information on Frances Harriet Williams to be found, and I am sure my peer is working hard to locate this information.
 * 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? I don't think the technicalities are there yet, but from the headers it appears they will.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes there are already several helpful links linked.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I imagine once the other sections are fleshed out, this new article will have a great contribution to Wikipedia.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The newness and clarity of the information.
 * How can the content added be improved? Elaboration would be helpful.