User:Wbrobertson/Combahee River Collective/Hhbeech 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? (Wbrobertson)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Wbrobertson/Combahee River Collective

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes- added references from Combahee River Collective "How We Get Free" (Taylor, 2017)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes-women and gender studies

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Could add additional references
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media No


 * 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-N/A
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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is included in multiple sections, adding additional support for the existing Wiki Article. It included Taylor's "How We Get Free", which was not originally in the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Adding a few additional resources to (Taylor, 2017) would continue to strengthen the article, although it is already lengthy and has multiple references. Continuing to find additional up to date articles or resources to support the existing text would strengthen this article.

Overall evaluation
Overall, great job with this article! It was quite a feat considering it was lengthy to begin with. You did a nice job of incorporating Taylor 2017 throughout the various sections already in existence, and adding a new paragraph to the "developing a statement" section. My only recommendation would be to find a few additional supporting articles or resources to bolster what you've included by adding "How We Get Free" to provide further support for this information. But overall, very nice work on this. It is evident that you spent a quality amount of time and thought on this!