User:Reshmijpatel6/User:Marthasjones/sandbox/Kdorse29 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? 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?
 * 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
The Lead has been updated to reflect new content. The Lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly and concisely describes the topic of the article. The Lead does not include a brief description of all the article's major sections. Some information present in the Lead does not appear in the article itself such as the work Frances H. Williams did with New York Senator Lehman. The Lead is relatively concise and touches mainly on defining and presenting the importance of the topic.

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
The content added is relevant to the topic and is partially up to date as some resources maybe dated. There is content missing in regards to the significance of the topic including information related to Frances Williams career.

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
The content added is neutral and does not appear heavily biased toward a particular position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented based on the content added. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor or against any particular position.

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
The new content is backed up by a database of African Americans in Kentucky and some books on the topic. The sources are relatively thorough as there maybe only one additional source not covered. As a result, the article is mostly reflective of the available literature on the topic. The sources are mostly current with the exception of one dated from the 1930s. Many of the links work in the article.

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
The content added is mostly well-written and concise. There are some grammatical and spelling errors in the article such as using of two times near each other before Price Administration and a misspelling of Christian. This makes it less clear and easy to read. Many other sections of the articles are clear and easy to read. The content is mostly well-organized except there is no section on the work with Senator Lehman as described in the Lead. The content is broken down into sections reflecting major points of the topic.

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
There are no images.

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
The article likely does not meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements as only one reliable secondary source appears independent of the subject. The list of sources is relatively exhaustive but may not completely reflect all available literature on the topic. The article does not have necessary info boxes, but does include section headings. There is not a developed reference section. As a result, it deviates from similar articles. The article links one way to other articles but not back to the Frances H. Williams article itself. As a result, it may not be completely discoverable.

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
The content added improved the oveall quality of the article as it made the article more developed. The strengths of the content added is that much of the content does not appear out of place and sources are used. There are sections and a relatively strong lead as well. The content can be improved by fixing grammatical and spelling errors, adding more content, creating a references section and info box, adding media if possible and adding more sources, especially secondary sources not directly related to the topic.