User:NamakaOK/Effie Lee Morris/Monte141 Peer Review

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)
  • NamakaOK
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:NamakaOK/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, the lead is much more focused on the Morris's pioneering work and its impacts.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, from the first sentence, I do feel like I have a good overview of who Effie Lee Morris was.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • It does not walk through each of the sections, but does highlight important parts of Morris's life (librarianship, advocacy, legacy) that show up in the sections. From the lead, I would understand what the article was going to be about.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Not from what I can see. Everything can be found in greater detail throughout the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It seems concise, only highlighting major career moves and accomplishments, which are expanded on later.

Lead evaluation

I thought this was a well written and informative lead. It communicates what Effie Lee Morris is known for, her accomplishments, and her lasting legacy. It is neutral and concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • I really appreciated the information added. I think that the edits and additions here create a more eloquent and informative overview of Morris's work and life. Breaking the Career section into chunks also allowed for easier reading.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Content appears to be up-to-date, I see references from even this year.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I did not feel there was anything missing.

Content evaluation

This was a great update on the page! The editing and rewriting of sentences made the content clearer. The information added was relevant. The additional sections were impressively detailed.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Content was neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Information was factual and did not appear biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • There are quite a few quotes in the Legacy area, which may be over-representing what others have said about her. Otherwise, it all looks good.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • I do not see the content trying to persuade.

Tone and balance evaluation

The article was neutral and did not appear to be trying to persuade or convince the reader of a certain position. I did not see an area where one point of view was being ignored.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Everything not currently backed up by sources (mostly at the bottom) has a link that will be added in later.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • They properly cover the content. There is a mix of websites, reviews, and articles.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Sources were varied, reliable, and backed up content well.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, the sentences flow much easier with the edits.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • None that I found.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Adding breaks within sections made content much easier to find and read, especially in the Legacy. The section titles accurately reflect what the sections are about.

Organization evaluation

The article is organized well. The additional breaks within sections help to keep reading easy. The addition of images [see below] will also aid in this.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Looking at the images planned, these will greatly enhance the article. They give the reader a visual image and provide a break in text-heavy areas.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • There are no captions currently, but I am assuming that these will be added below the photos. I liked the idea of adding a quote with a photo.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Images not added yet.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Images not added yet.

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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The added content really fleshes out the article. Looking at the draft versus the article currently live on Wikipedia, I get a much better sense of Morris, what she did, and how she has impacted her fields through the updated draft.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • I really like the break-ups of sections, as well as that images will be added. All of the rewrites of sentences were perfect, and I applaud the ability to write so neutrally. The content also reflected a lot of research.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Seeing the images added, having the content from the links at the bottom added.

Overall evaluation

This was a really good draft! It even gave me some ideas on how to better my own article. Everything was factual, neutral, and relevant to the article's topic. There are some areas that still need to be completed/verified/added, but once these are done, I think this will be a successful and helpful Wikipedia article.