User:Reshmijpatel6/User:Marthasjones/sandbox/Reshmijpatel6 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
 * Frances Harriet Williams

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
This is a new article and the Lead has been drafted. The first sentence introduces Frances Harriet Williams, mentioning the careers she held and her work as an activist, including organizations she was affiliated with. It gives sufficient information without becoming overly detailed. The Lead also contains a summary of some major sections, focusing predominantly on her public service positions. It may also be worth mentioning a phrase about her education and/or work as an author, since these seem to be major sections of the article. This section has a good amount of information without being overly detailed. Some minor structural suggestions for improvement are to bold Frances Harriet William's name in the first sentence and add in her dates of birth and death. Additionally, the link to the Price Administration is broken.

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 listed in the Sandbox for addition is all relevant to the topic of Frances Harriet Williams and avoids name-dropping or giving excess background information. Instead, it focuses on Williams' life, career, and contributions. It is hard to tell if the content added is up-to-date as there is only one source added as of now, but that source is one that was modified within the past 3 years. There is no content that does not belong, but I do have some suggestions for content to be added. Including more information and sources pertaining to her civil rights activism would be helpful as this seems to be a central component of her life. I would also be interested to know if Williams worked as a sociologist after publishing her thesis, and if so, where she practiced sociology.

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 in a neutral tone as it is highly factual. The largest component of the added content is a timeline of Williams' life, chronologically moving through her early years, education, positions held, and publications. There is no evident bias or opposing viewpoints I see at this point as the article is factual, not opinionated. As of now, the article seems to weight her education more heavily than other aspects of her life, but this is likely simply because it is a work in progress.

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
There is currently only one source listed. The link does work and it is a reliable website, the Notable Kentucky African Americans Database. As mentioned previously, this is a current source as it has been updated within the past 3 years. There are several links to other Wikipedia articles throughout the page, which are very helpful for getting background information and encourage the reader to do more exploring of the general topics related to Williams' life. The main feedback for this section is to add more sources and cite in-line, as well as fixing the broken link mentioned previously, to the Price Administration, which does not seem to yet have a Wikipedia page. The links to Herbert H. Lehman and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are broken. All other links are working and useful.

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
It appears the article is currently divided into about 7 major sections that are generally chronological (with the possible exception of publications). This method of organizing creates good flow in the page and makes it easy for a reader to follow. It would be helpful to also add subsections. For example, career could be broken up into social work, public service, authorship, and civil rights activism. The content has a few minor grammatical errors, but it is still a work in progress; the errors I noticed were a typo using "were" instead of "where" and misplacement of a comma within the parentheses "(D-NY,)" in the first paragraph. One formatting note is to add different levels of headings and subheadings before publishing the page. Overall, the organization is clear and the page is well-structured.

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 current images. It would be helpful to add a photograph of Frances Harriet Williams, along with a Template:Infobox person with quick facts about her life.

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
This review is of a work in progress. The draft does not yet meet the notability requirements due to the number of sources, but it contains the information necessary for the final version to meet these criteria. Final formatting has not been completed so it also does not yet follow patterns of other similar articles, but the content does follow these patterns, with the biographical entry being primarily chronological. The article links to several other articles in a way that is helpful, not overwhelming.

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 is strong, factual, and a good basis for this new article. It focuses on the topic of the article, Frances Harriet Williams, and does not resort to name-dropping or excessive linking/background information to make a case for notability. Instead, it uses comprehensive research on Williams to build a case for her as a notable figure in her own right. The information about her education is solid and a good representation of what the remainder of the article will eventually look like. Since there is a factual timeline in place, the main way this content can be improved is by bringing in more sources and adding in-line citations to make the remaining sections more detailed. There is also a need for formatting after the content is written, as mentioned previously. Overall, the information provided builds the foundation for a strong new Wikipedia article.