User talk:Jasminecoker/Person of color

Peer Review
Off the bat it appears that there are no references for this draft. This is obviously problematic and makes reviewing difficult. Given that much of this is copied from the template article, I am assuming that this is an issue with your browser, and you have references to add somewhere. I can try to review this again once there are proper citations.

Overall, I think the lead is good, but could use a little more elaboration, particularly on the contemporary significance of the term. If I am coming to this Wikipedia page, say on my phone from Google results after hearing this term for the first time, I want to know not only what is the definition, but also why I am hearing it (for example- association with the social justice movement, person-first scholarship, etc). It looks like since you started this draft the main article was updated, and I might redraft with those additions in mind.

The content seems to be reasonably complete, although I was surprised about the lack of reference to the "person-first" versus "identity-first" debate, which seems to be echoed here, or contrast with the parallel debate over "hyphenated Americans," although perhaps you didn't find supporting documentation in your literature review.

I notice that your tone, in a few places, seems to stray from neutrality, particularly in the last paragraph of the criticisms section. While I agree with your conclusion, it is my understanding that we are supposed to be neutral. Likewise, in the paragraph after the lead, you say "members... prefer" rather than "may prefer" or "some members... prefer" depending on which is better supported by sources. This is stronger, more direct language, and if this were a news article I would normally applaud it for avoiding weasel words and avoiding passive voice. As it is, Wikipedia has its own standards.

Again, I can't judge the quality of citations because I cannot see any. Hopefully this is a quick fix.

I don't imagine an image here would be particularly helpful given it describes a linguistic concept. Maybe a map of use, or something like an NGrams timeline? However if this doesn't already exist in a usable format, creating one would be original research, and thus outside the scope of Wiki edits. In any case, it seems fine as it is on the image front.

Overall I think this has room for improvement, but I think once the points I've mentioned are addressed, it has strong potential. I would definitely double check the changes to the main article, which involve grammar and mechanical changes that I think can be integrated before copying over. Zepherus7285 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)