User:Samantha Gould/Carrie Williams Clifford/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? Samantha Gould
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Samantha Gould/Carrie Williams Clifford
 * Carrie Williams Clifford

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
Currently, the Lead is only one sentence. As mentioned in the Sandbox draft, the article started with minimal information. The Lead does clearly describe the article's topic, Carrie Williams Clifford, and mentions here work as an author and activist. I would suggest a few more sentences be added to this section to provide a more comprehensive summary of the sections proposed in the Sandbox draft. The Lead does not include information not present in the article and is concise.

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
There is a lot of strong content suggested for addition in the Sandbox draft. In particular, her contributions to the Harlem Renaissance movement and specifics of her suffrage work/what roles she played in individual organizations are not included in the current articles and are great changes to make to improve the Wikipedia entry. The content suggested to be added is up-to-date and includes current sources. There is not content that doesn't belong. I would suggest reorganizing the sections in the original article with more subcategories for better flow and balance. It seems that the Sandbox draft has already started to address this, but even more specific structure could be helpful.

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 information in the Sandbox draft under biography, political work, and writing is all entirely neutral and factual. There isn't a side taken and the information is supported by reliable sources. As the research moves forward, one thing to keep in mind is being thorough when attempting to figure out factual elements of her life, such as whether or not her sons died. If there is no consensus it may be best to comment on the fact that sources disagree or include that there are opposing viewpoints if the balance is tipped one way in terms of sources. The only other potential topic where I see neutrality possibly becoming an issue is "intersection of political activism and poetry". I think this would be a phenomenal section to add and would strengthen the article, but would suggest being careful to stay neutral/objective rather than moving into an analytical style of writing.

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
All new proposed sources have working links and are reputable books or websites. Sources from the original article were not thorough but these proposed changes, as well as the two citations already added, will improve the Wikipedia article in this area. The sources are fairly current, some being from 1992 and some in the 5 years. It may be a good idea to search for additional newer sources if they are available. As a reminder, Google Books often have limited access so I would suggest only pulling information from the visible sections or looking into other ways to get around those paywalls. Overall, the sources are strong and have been improved greatly from the original list.

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 does not have grammatical or spelling errors; the writing is clear and effectively imparts information in the Wikipedia style. The content added is still a work in progress (which is what it should be at this point) but the content that has been written out is well-written and concise. I would suggest mapping out all proposed sections and subsections to figure out what information should go where and in what order. I think it would absolutely make sense to change the organization of the current article and replace it with some of the ideas in the Sandbox draft. These ideas would just need to be converted into a more solid structure that is easy to follow and emphasizes major points.

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 is an image included on the page, which is helpful in providing a visual representation of the subject of the article. However, the image doesn't include a caption or any associated information. I would suggest adding not only a caption, but a full description and basic facts about Carrie Wiliams Clifford using Template:Infobox person. An example of this template used in an article can be found in Harriet Tubman's Wikipedia entry. The image does adhere to copyright regulations.

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
N/A.

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
Overall, the content and sources added are good additions to the current article on Carrie Williams Clifford. The inclusion of many links to other Wikipedia articles and reliable citations/sources is a strength of this draft. The proposed ideas will make the article more complete and help flesh out a Wikipedia page with minimal information. The content written so far is very good and it seems as though there is a plan/ideas in place for adding additional content in the future. The main improvement would be to add more details, especially related to her political (suffrage and anti-lynching) career. The article could also benefit from structural changes such as sections/subsections and a biographical box. Great job so far!