User:Wno33/Jeremiah Burke Sanderson/Tayleraff4 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) Wno33
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Elmobigbirdberternie/sandbox

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
I think that you have done some great research into who Jeremiah Sanderson was. I was just a little confused as to why he was someone that I should know. Maybe you could include an intro statement and let the readers know who he was and what he is best remembered for.

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 has great information. It would be great to see the article broken up into different sections. Maybe you could break it up into sections like Early Life, Political Activism, Family Life. I also think that you have some gaps in between his lifeline. If he was trained as a barber, how did he end up in writing and speaking about anti-slavery? Is there anything else you could add to Jeremiah's parents? The information on that is a little vague.

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
You do a great job at remaining neutral and balanced in your article. I only see facts that are proven.

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
I think that when you cite your sources you may want to add titles. There are also a few sources that are repeated multiple times in your cited sources that may need to be combined into one.

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
The grammar and spelling is good and readable. I think that the article is a little hard to read in one whole body. Like I mentioned before, you might want to split it up into different sections. It would also be great to see more transition from topic to topic. Sometimes it is a little rough. example: Abolitionist presentations to marriage and family

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
It looks like there were some great pictures on the websites that you used. Maybe try and see if they are available to use on this article. It would be great to have visuals in your article.

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
I think you have done a great job at adding to the existing article. It has really broadened the information that has already been made available. I do think that there are some organizational problems that could use some work and some bridging the gaps in the timeline, but you have done a great job at adding what you have so far. I'm also not sure how great resources are for this person. I think that this article will be great with some adjustments and revisions. I really liked that you added more about his relationship with other political people at that time. it really helps to solidify where he is in history.