User talk:Aguerrero427/African National Congress Women's League

Hi, I completed my peer review! Tayyy123 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Taylor's Peer Review
They are editing an existing article. They are editing the entire thing.

Feedback: The article is more complete with the new content. I like that the article has a picture already, and I am now going to add a picture to my article! I like how long the article is. The article is well organized. In terms of improvements, "Black" should be capitalized. You should add the corresponding Wikipedia articles to the words "FEDTRAW," "NOW," and "UWCO" if they exist. I would also change the "Notables" section to say "Notable People." The most important thing to add to the article would be a subsection under "History" on the present day.

Lead Section: The introductory sentence clearly describes the topic. The lead includes information present in the article. The article deals with a historically underrepresented group. In terms of improvements, I think the lead section should be longer and it should include a brief description of the article's major sections. It should also mention women.

Clear Structure: The sections are clearly organized, but you should add more sections. The structure makes sense, but I would add information on the present-day under the "History" section.

Balanced Coverage: The content is easy to read. I do not see grammatical or spelling errors, but some parts could be edited for clarity. The content is relevant to the topic.

Neutral Content: The content is neutral. The claims do not seem biased.

Reliable Sources: The links in the references section work. The content backs up what the sources say. The sources are current. In terms of improvements, some facts are not backed up by citations. I would add more citations. Additionally, there should be more sources from different authors.

Other: Yes, there is an image that enhances understanding of the topic. The image has a heading, but not a caption.

Tayyy123 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Kate's Peer Review

What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? This could be information, writing, etc. that you think your classmate should not change and/or should expand on. ''The article does a great job of mentioning more women. This is great because we need more women represented in these Wikipedia pages.'' Where do you see room for improvement or further development? Make sure to explain why these changes would improve the article. ''The only thing I could see being improved is the amount of content. Of course, this is only a rough draft so more content will be added later on. Some clearer formatting would be good as well.'' What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? ''More detailed content in Controversy section in final draft. Notables section is nicely detailed.'' Is the article well-organized? Does the structure make sense? Yes, it is well organized and the structure makes sense. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! Unfortunately not. As a reader, what else would you like to know about this topic? [Of course, this information may not be readily available in all cases, but it can help generate interesting directions for their research] Some more details about the scandal would be nice but the material already present is substantial.

A clear structure: are the entry’s sections clearly organized? Does the structure make sense? ''Yes! Very clear.'' Balanced coverage: is the article balanced in terms of its coverage? For example, do any sections receive insufficient weight given their importance? Does anything seem unnecessary? Is there anything obviously missing? ''Yes, it is balanced. Notables section is more heavy than the Controversy section but it's just a rough draft.'' Neutral content: is the content conveyed in a neutral tone? A neutral article should not make claims on behalf of unnamed groups (e.g. “some people say”) or present information in value-laden ways (e.g. “Most people think” or “Some insist that”) Yes, it is neutral. Reliable sources: look at the reference section, are the sources reliable? Does the entry rely too heavily on one or two sources? Is any key claim in the entry missing a citation? Yes, good mix of academic and journalistic sources.

Ps146a (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Batool's peer review
For the "controversy" section, the "corruption?" in parentheses was a bit confusing. I wasn't sure if it meant that this was a suggestion as an alternate title or if this was part of the title. Also, suggesting "corruption" as part of a controversy might create a little bias, so, try to review that a little more.

The first sentence of the first paragraph feels redundant because the second sentence is talking about the same thing, but in more detail. Maybe find a way to mesh those two together to make it sound smoother. Like instead of using "The League's" as the start of the second sentence, you can change it to "ANCWL" and get rid of the first sentence altogether.

I like the second paragraph. It is a lot more polished and straight to the point. Overall, with a bit more work on the first paragraph and just a tiny bit of attention to detail, the rest of your assignment will look great!

Thank you!BatoolHMakki (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)