User talk:Aschmidbauer/sandbox

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) Aschmidbauer Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Aschmidbauer/sandbox === Lead ===

Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A, starting new article 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? Yes Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Short and concise Lead evaluation Perhaps expand on the introduction a bit more to include a prominent accomplishment of hers.

Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, content from 2019 Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The career section isn't filled out, but you'll get to that. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, is is creating an article for someone who had been forgotten by history. Content evaluation Content is as up to date as possible, good.

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 Tone and balance evaluation The tone is informative and matter of fact.

Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there is a citation for the content added so far. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources are third party sources, good. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation Look for more sources!

Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, short and concise. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nope. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes Organization evaluation I would suggest adding more sections to make the article easy to jump around in and highlight her life.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media N/A

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

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? Yes? Only one source How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? More sources need, but you're on a good track. 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? So far I think yes, I can see its potential, just more information needed. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, not yet. New Article Evaluation Probably including more sources would solve any lingering questions.

Guiding questions:
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? N/A What are the strengths of the content added? I like the early life information because I figure it might be difficult to find information on early influences and habits, it makes her feel more real. How can the content added be improved? Expand on the information you have probably is all. A good start! I think you probably have more to add, but from your review I know you know what needs to be prioritized like headings and diverse citations. Maybe include what all goes into recording oral traditions and link to other people who have had the same job since it's a bit obscure, or link to her work. Also think about adding more sections. All in all, I like the tone, I like the set up, now you just need to add and organize! 2601:143:8201:F90:8DCC:65EB:6115:B53B (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Jyumanzor