User:Tmckerna/Charity Cannon Willard/Munashe822 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)
 * Tmckerna
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Charity Cannon Willard

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes it has.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead clearly describes the articles topic and gives the reader a brief insight into what they will b reading about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the lead clearly state who the article is about, what she did, and her accomplishments. This is important because the article then goes into greater detail about what was mentioned in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No the information in the lead is just elaborated in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It was very concise.

Lead evaluation
- I found the lead to be really good and informative. It gave me a good idea about the subject of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added was very relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes it was up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No all the content added was relevant to the topic and to my knowledge nothing was missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes the article is about Charity Willard who was a female

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes it was very neutral it did not reflect a certain perspective.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No I did not find any.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No everything seemed to be of the same importance.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No everything was very neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance was very neutral it did not persuaded the reader to take any particular stance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes all the information that was in the document was information that was from a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they go in depth about the life of Charity Willard.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes the ones i looked for were current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I was not able to see if all the sources from a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they work.

Sources and references evaluation
The source seemed up to date and they worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the author presented the information in a very concise and clear manner.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not identify any grammatical or spelling errors when I read through it.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I found the article well-organized and the sections flowed really well.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the page was very good and it flowed well when i read it.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The image enhances the understanding of the topic because it makes it easier to visualize the person the article is about.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes I found the articles well -captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The licensing for the images was hard to find but the source link was there.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They looked good with the rest of the article.

Images and media evaluation
The images laid out worked well with article, the only issue I found was with tracking down licensing.

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?
 * The article did seem to meet the notability requirements to me.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list of sources was quite long and there were citations on every important point.
 * 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?
 * Yes the article looks very similar to other article I had seen all over wikipedia.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes it does.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I believe that the content improved the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * the article had organizational clarity and flowed well.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The only thing that could be improved is taking care of the licensing issue.