User:Aliciab5334/Regina Gwynn/DDDeniseR Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Aliciab5334 and Regina Gwynn

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Aliciab5334/Regina Gwynn

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I believe the Lead includes a lengthy description rather than it being brief.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, The lead and article body differ in information provided.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe the Lead to be a little overly detailed.

Content

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, content added is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date? From what I see the content is up-to-date, there is just one citation I am not sure about as I cannot find a date of publication.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't know if I would say the content doesn't belong but there is a lot of extra content that could be either cut out or maybe placed into another section.
• Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

Tone and Balance

• 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? Just a tad overrepresented but still important information in my opinion.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, not at all.

Sources and References

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
• Are the sources current? Yes, three of the four sources are current. There is one citation that I cannot find a date for.
• Check a few links. Do they work? All links provided work.

Organization

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? All content added is well written.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not come across any spelling or grammar errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Content added is well-organized and reflect the major points of the topic but could potentially be broken down into smaller sections.

For New Articles Only

• 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.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes.
• 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? Yes.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No.

Overall impressions

• What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added are the description of the topics background and how she came to be who she is by what she has accomplished.
• How can the content added be improved? I think the content added could be improved by breaking the Lead and article body into smaller sections such as career, education, etc. for an easier read. Overall, the article was very well put together.

- Denise Rodriguez