User:Cecilialerda/Juana Manuela Gorriti/Lizzzardqueen Peer Review

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes! The Lead was expanded and gave a lot more context for Gorriti’s biography.

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The first two introductory sentences are a clear and concise view of Gorriti’s accomplishments and noteworthiness.

• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, and I think it would be relevant to mention the various positions she held in addition to first lady that are covered in sections, including: salon host, journalist, and battlefield nurse.

• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

There are few things in the lead that can be edited for length and relevancy. I think the quote used in the lead should be moved to the ‘literary contributions’ section, as it does not fit with keeping the lead a very general, very brief description.

• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think the first four sentences are perfect as they are. I would move the quote used in the lead AND the comment about inspiring Abel Delgado to the literary contributions section, however, the sentence that begins with Gorriti’s commitment to women’s issues and its relevance to men seems like it fits with the lead content, and I think should remain.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes. I think most of the content that has been added is relevant to the topic. What could use some fine tuning is copyediting and removing some of the information that appears to be from the original Wikipedia entry that is NOT relevant to the topic, or overly opinionated by Wikipedia’s content standards. The final paragraph (two sentences) of the literary contributions section is not written in an objective voice. I would like to see something added about the end of her life, and her final years if possible in her biography section, as the last thing that is mentioned in her biography is about her divorce. Additionally, it would probably benefit to mention her work as a battlefield nurse, the fact that her husband was the president of Bolivia in the biography section, and mention her time as first lady as well. Even though you go into more detail about those things later, I think they might benefit from a mention in her biography section.

• Is the content added up-to-date?

The content all appears up to date.

• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Language of the piece does need another once over to make it all read in one, unified neutral tone.

• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, this article addresses the life of an influential writer and political female Argentinian figure, who deserves to be remembered for her own accomplishments first, and first lady of Bolivia second. But that’s my own opinion on the matter.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There is considerable authorial voice that indicates preference for the quality of her writing at a point in the entry (see literary contributions section) that should be removed or heavily edited.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

I think for the most part this is a fairly good overview and remains mostly neutral, but does tend to veer into authorial voice at points that might be better served by trying to emulate as much neutrality as possible. The article would benefit from not suggesting that Gorriti is not as well know as she should be, as that is opinion, and instead honing in on specifics of her career and literary accomplishments as have been written about by other scholars and experts.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Footnote 8 “El Historiador magazine (archives)” appears to be a primary source. Sources 3, 12 are the author’s own literature, which might be useful for some things, but I don’t know in this case if it can be a secondary source. Footnotes 2, 5, and 11 are in Spanish, which is totally fine, I just don’t feel qualified to state what kind of sources these are.

• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Source 4 looks like a great source for this Wiki entry, I’m curious what else could be gleaned from this dissertation.

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?

Footnote 12 is so current, it’s the future! (I think you might have just entered the year in wrong, no biggie). There’s one source from 2020, most others range from the late 1990s to the mid-aughts. It might be a good idea to try to find one more recent source to add to the bibliography, the second most recent (8, 2015) is a primary source, I’m pretty sure.

• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

For the most part I do not feel qualified to comment on this, but I imagine you’ve tried to locate as many sources from a diverse spectrum of authors as possible.

• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

I found an article through the library databases that might be relevant to the wiki entry.

Grzegorcyk, Marzena. “Lost Space: Juana Manuela Gorriti’s Postcolonial Geography.” Journal of Iberian & Latin American Studies 8, no. 1 (June 2002): 55–69. doi:10.1080/14701840220143995.

• Check a few links. Do they work?

Most of the links appear to work just fine.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are a handful of copy errors in the article. Check particularly the lead, literary contributions section, Battlefield nurse, and Return to Argentina sections for spelling. I would take all of the paragraphs and paste into word to do a final spell check and do one final read through in the sandbox.

• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I think that the literary contributions section should go at the end of the other sections, as that seems to be the convention with a lot of writers on wikipedia is to go through the entirety of their lives, beat by beat, and THEN have their literary contributions and major works at the end of the article. I think it would flow really nicely to have her writing bibliography right after the literary contribution s section.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The article is absolutely more thorough and complete than in its original published Wikipedia version. I think you are in the polishing and refining section, with a few minor additions for completion and some possible reorganization.

• What are the strengths of the content added?

This article really benefits from a more wholistic view of the many facets of Gorriti’s life and career.

• How can the content added be improved?

Like I said earlier in the review, it might be worth looking at whether or not you can expand her biography section to include more of the entirety of her life, and organize the sections so that they end with literary contributions and then major works. That and a final copy-edit and this will be a much improved article!