User:Schoenjr/Patricia Locke/Chief Lucy 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) Schoenjr
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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
Cool topic choice. First big thing that I would say is to make sure that you have a clear lead introducing high level who Patricia Locke is to orient the reader, otherwise it feels confusing when just jumping in.

Reading through the article, the beginning looks good. A few points I would clarify are about the relationship between her father and mother (if there is any significance in terms of her identity in it). I would also expand on what this “oral history” is that is now at the library of congress because I’m not sure what exactly that means. You also need to make sure the information you’re using is cited. Most of the first paragraphs aren’t cited and I’m wondering where the information came from.

The second paragraph of the biography section feels a little choppy in hopping back and forth between her and her kids. Maybe see if you can make it flow a bit better. I would also frame how indigenous activism fits in with her middle life or something if you’re going to define her biography as early life. I would also build out how she ended up in indigenous activism –  maybe have a clear transition sentence so that the reader can clearly follow.

I really like your additions (and they are well cited!) under indigenous activism! Great job presenting neutral information and it definitely feels complete. I would explain what the Baha'i Faith section is in the leading sentence because I’m not understanding what it is or its significance super easily.

I would explain how the 1993 parliament displayed increased religious and cultural diversity in comparison so that it doesn’t feel as much like a biased statement. I would break up her death and accomplishments into a different section. I would also expand more in the body on her indigenous language revitalization efforts or link them to her activism more clearly so that the reader can easily understand how her grandson’s efforts have continued her mission.

The accomplishments and foundation sections look good. I feel like the article isn’t missing any major key areas besides what I’ve mentioned above! It is very neutral and feels relevant. I would say the parts where you are weaving in added information probably need a little more work to be seamless, and those original parts need cited sources, but the sources you have used look pretty neutral. Any viewpoints you can bring in on any pushback she received or challenges she faced could be useful in painting the picture of her life from all sides.

On the whole great work! I’m excited to see the completed piece.

Chief Lucy