User:Sbowen99/Annie Montague Alexander/Slightlyseriousspinster Peer Review

Overall evaluation:
General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing? SSbowen99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbowen99/sandboxAnnieMontagueAlexander

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?

You do a nice job in summarizing the bulwark of Alexander’s career by shedding light to specifically the fields that she worked on as well as the highlighting the museums that she founded, and her support for the furtherance of work in support of the museum. I might think of working to reorder the lead so that it is more chronologically succinct, perhaps adding the founding of museums after the detailing of her work on expeditions. I am not sure to what extent the quote regarding her at the end is necessary within the lead, but that is a stylistic choice, it might be better to specifically focus on that quote later in the article or more succinctly state that she is considered a founder of the college.

Lead evaluation

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

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?

Your content box (not sure of the correct terminology is nicely succinct.) You have greatly expanded upon the original article and highlighted the important work that Alexander did. This specific sentence was a bit confusing, “in Honolulu during the Kingdom of Hawaii in what is now the Mission Houses Museum.”  I think more clarification with the sentence would help. I think a lot of the language in terms of kingdom of Hawaii and Territory of Hawaii is a bit clunky, it is important to differentiate the two but think some shifts in word order will be helpful. If you want you could expand on her family and see if you can find any connections that helped influence her life work, but other than that I think it is solid. In terms of travelling to numerous places, do you have sources that help contextualize her work? This might be helpful in once again highlighting the significance of this as not that many people were able to travel during this period of time (and that is still the case today). I think it is an area that you could expand but it is up to you.

You do a nice job of highlighting the work of the expeditions, breaking it down by year greatly helps to contextualize the passing of time. I am not sure if it is necessary to add information regarding the amputation of the foot, but again it is up to you if you think it is important to have that information. It is something I struggled with in my article of should I add this information about her colleagues and the drama she experienced, and I am not sure what the correct answer is.

Tone and balance evaluation

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

You have a nice list of sources; I particularly enjoy how you used the taxonomy and the species that she named. You are fortunate that there has been a digitization of numerous of her work, I particularly enjoyed the scrapbook, these links not only help with the credibility of the article but also allow the reader to have a first-hand glance of Alexander in action. Your soruces look impeccable and offer a wide array of individuals.

Sources and references evaluation

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?

There are some areas where I would read aloud, where some phrases seem a bit clunky, specifically the situation on Hawaii. Since Hawaii seems to be highly important for Alexander’s career illustrating that as well as her family’s involvement in the Hawaiian state is important. I think working on breaking information down into longer sentences will help, while you are now an expert, making sure the reader is fully able to understand what they are reading will greatly help with your article.

Organization evaluation

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?

The previous article was rather lackluster in terms of usage of images, and you did an excellent job in highlighting the visual appeals towards the Wikipedia page. It in many ways looks like those DK books that we read when we were younger with all of the bright images.

Images and media evaluation

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

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

This article blows the precursor Wikipedia article out of proportion. It is clear you spent ample time researching Alexander and highlighting her interesting life, her important work and her lasting legacy. I would recommend doing some proof reading and detangling the information about her early life as well. I would also think about whether or not to keep background information about the people in her life, there is a line between being succinct and having too much detail and I am not sure of where that line should be drawn with Wikipedia. Overall wonderful work, I had a great time reading this piece and learned a lot about this important pioneer in Archeology!