User:Wno33/Jeremiah Burke Sanderson/Cmchan99 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? Wno33 & Elmobigbirdberternie
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wno33/sandbox#Jeremiah_Burke_Sanderson

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead was very good at introducing who the page was about, had added from the original page. I was prepared with the information I needed for the rest of the article--good introduction. All of the information from the lead is presented in greater detail in the article.

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
The content is all relevant and seems up to date. It all seems to belong within this article. It does discuss a historically underrepresented topic, being about a black educator and mentioning his influence on African American education in California.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
It seemed well balanced in its neutrality.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
Most sources are from within the last 20 years, though there are some that are older than that. The link for the first reference doesn't work (not sure if that is a leftover link from the article that is already established or not, but it probably should be updated if possible.

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?

Organization evaluation
It was very easy to read! There was one section that could be more clear with language/grammar. Under the section about Sacramento, it says, "only one private school for black children existed in the basement of teacher Elizabeth Scott." Is this referring to the basement in her house? Could be more clear. There was also some repetition about his letters talking about him missing his family, with similar wording. Other than that it was well organized and written.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There is one picture of public transportation in early San Francisco, but I feel it could be better related to the article. Are there pictures of Jeremiah Stockton you could use?

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
It is much better than the existing article--more information, better organized, etc. Obviously this version is a draft and likely isn't completed, but I hope you are adding more to the last couple sections. The beginning had a lot more information and there was only a sentence or two in the last couple sections.