User talk:SonnieMunroe/Freedom's Journal

I peer-reviewed your article. Here it is: 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)- SonnieMunroe Link to draft you're reviewing: Freedom's Journal Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?- Yes it has been updated Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?- There is a brief introduction that talks about the journal and its history/ background. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?- It does this. There is also a content box that shows all of the sections and links to them. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?- All information found in the lead is present elsewhere in the article. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?- The lead is concise. It gives all necessary information while not being too wordy. Lead evaluation- I thought the lead was very good. It provided helpful information and had all of the most important facts. Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes, all information helps add to the information. I think that this provides better context and adds more information to the topic. Is the content added up-to-date?- All information is up to data and accurate. Since this focuses on history, all information is up to date. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- I feel like there could be more information about the content of the journals. What did they focus on? How many issue were there? Who were notable contributors? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- Yes this deals with equity gaps and underrepresented populations and topics. This project was intended to help fill in the gaps. Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?- The content was neutral, I did not see any opinion. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- There were no biased claims, just statement of facts. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- I think that all viewpoints were equally represented and that it is a balanced article. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- The content does not attempt to persuade it is neutral. Tone and balance evaluation- The article was very professional. There was no opinion or bias, just statement of facts. Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?- Yes all of the information was backed up. I saw no unsubstantiated claims. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?- Yes the sources are thorough. They cover the information and are reputable. 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 diverse. They include marginalized individuals. Check a few links. Do they work?- Yes Sources and references evaluation- Excellent use of good reliable sources to back up facts. Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- Yes the writing style was to the point and well written. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?- I saw no errors in terms of spelling and grammar. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- There are sections that go over different topics about the journal. They are all relevant and help break down the article. Organization evaluation- Very well organized. No errors and easy to read. Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?- There is a picture of volume one of the journal. It shows what the journal looked like. Are images well-captioned?- Yes it identifies the journal Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?- yes Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?- The image is laid out in a visually appealing way I just think it could be bigger. It was too small to see any details. Images and media evaluation- Good use of pictures to add to the 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? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- Yes the article now has more information and provides a better context for the journal. What are the strengths of the content added?- The information helped with the background information about the journal, and key people involved in the journal. How can the content added be improved?- I think the article could talk specifically about the different volumes of the journal and its contents. Overall evaluation- Great job this is a very professional page. The information was relevant and important to the topic.