User:Smi02002/Pattrice jones/Curti485 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Smi02002's Group


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smi02002/Pattrice_jones?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No updates other than removing the sources in the original article, which I'm assuming would either be added back in or recited.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the added content expands upon what has already been published.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * If the information is available, you could potentially add an "early life" section to talk about where she grew up, family, siblings, schooling, etc.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, Jones is a woman and a lesbian, both underrepresented groups on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added does feel neutral. The use of the word "normalized" in reference to the seeing dead chickens on the road was the only part that jumped out at me as potentially showing a bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * You could discuss any pushback she has received for her beliefs or work. You could also expand upon the controversy with the two oxen within the article, rather than leaving it as a hyperlink to somewhere else.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are several added lines that do not contain citations that need to. The sources do seem reliable, though they are not hyperlinked and I think are hidden behind a paywall? If you could find some free to view sources to use in addition to the ones you currently have, that would be great. There are also only four new sources to be added to the pages existing sources, and extra backup never hurts.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them?
 * I don't believe any of the sources are from class, but I think the only source to be used from class would be one to help define ecofeminism or intersectionality (but I don't think that's necessary).
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Based off of author names, there are at least a few women represented, but as I said, there are only four new sources.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think so.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are several grammatical errors and missed capitalizations throughout the article. There are also a few in the original article that should be fixed as well. Jones is often not capitalized, though it appears maybe she prefers that? I noticed several articles using her name have not capitalized it.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The sectioning makes sense to me.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The original article contains an image that I think should be left in.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * As far as I can tell
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved?
 * Yes, the content has given more background information into who jones is, as well as reasoning behind her actions.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added will help a reader to better understand who jones is and what she does.

Additional Questions


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources?
 * 4 new sources, 14 on the existing article
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material?
 * Yes, we discussed intersectionality in great detail, and ecofeminism comes up in discussions and readings.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article?
 * Not really. More could be added about jones's place in the economist movement at the time she first began advocating for change versus now.
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further?
 * I mentioned above adding an early life section if you can. You could also add information on the impact that the sanctuary has had if that information is available.