User:YamYamRulez/Margaret Crang/EmilyMeeds Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

YamYamRulez


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:YamYamRulez/Margaret Crang


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * No current article exists

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Section:

The Lead section is constructed well, it contains no extraneous info, and all the relevant information is included. It does however have a couple grammatical errors (as to be expected on a first draft). It contains an introductory sentence that clearly describes and introduces the topic. The lead does touch on her personal life, political career, controversies and legacy. Though It also touches on her women's rights activism, the proceeding sections could benefit from some more notoriety of her influence within the sphere of feminism and women's rights. But other than that the lead is concise and well written.

side note: It does need a citation for the third sentence.

Content:

The content added is relevant, up to date, all of the content seems to fit in nicely, and it feels like it belongs. In reference to the question of filling Wikipedia's content gap - it does address a historically underrepresented population. That is, it illuminates the reality that women did participate in and were a part of politics in a time in history were little has been documented in regards to women's involvement in this sphere.

Tone and Balance:

The content that is included is neutral. I cannot see and biased positions or references, and the content does not appear to persuade the reader to adopt any particular perspective or ideology. I don't feel that any viewpoint is over or underrepresented because I could not find any viewpoints within the article. Just factual evidence of this topics existence and career. There might be a slight under representation of information about her activism (particularly her activism in women's rights and anti-fascism). The lead section makes note of these activisms and it might be beneficial to include more on that within the body of the article if you can find the information.

side note: the first sentence in your "political career" section, under the header of campaign could benefit from being reworded. It is the only sentence that might be considered to be biased.

Sources and references:

The links to the sources work and every citation seems to be added correctly and includes the relevant information from that source. The last reference on your list [8] doesn't seem to fit in with your comment about Cang leading a petition for the first black nursing student at the Royal Alexandra. But maybe I just couldn't find her name in the news article. Maybe just take a second look at that one just to be sure. The sources are thorough and written by a diverse group of individuals. I really enjoyed your utilization of the Edmonton journal.

Organization:

The content is well written and concise. A couple grammatical errors here and there, such as missing an "a" in your first sentence where you state "was lawyer" (should be "was a lawyer"), and where you stated "which she later served on council with" (should be changed to "whom she later served on council with") and I found one spelling error (should be preserve, not preserved). Also, a couple sentences seem to be worded a little funny (like the one where you talk about the cortisone). Other than that, it was really well organized and thought out.

For new articles:

I'm not too sure if the article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. The sources included are sources such as news articles, which I believe are fine considering you included 2 journal articles in conjunction with them, and a museum article. The reference list seems to include all relevant literature. I couldn't find anything else on this individual that would be considered appropriate additions to your Wikipedia page. So great job on that! The article also follows the basic structure found in other articles on Wikipedia and it included embedded links to other wiki pages.

Overall Impressions:

Great article. To me, this article seems pretty close to being complete. Citations were good, enough of them were included. At least two were from journals and you really utilized the information in them to create a well rounded article. The topic is interesting and adds to the Wikipedia content gap. What I would work on is just the grammar in some sentences and a couple spelling mistakes. If you could find a relevant picture, I would also include that if you weren't already thinking about it.

Thanks for taking the time to read all that :)

EmilyMeeds