User:Mgondek20/Christine Navarro Paul/Njeanm 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? Mgondek20
Link to draft you're reviewing:
User:Mgondek20/Christine Navarro Paul

Lead

Guiding questions:

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
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is concise.

Lead evaluation

Overall the lead is concise and neat but you might want to add a bit more from your sections, maybe something from her early or later life. It is a bit short but you can easily fix that.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes
Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- Yes it does

Content evaluation

There is a nice even spread of information and you cover the process of basket making, her role in it, and both of their roles in the community thoroughly
I know you haven't finished formatting yet so I'm assuming you'll have links to add in
There are some sentences with awkward wording that you might want to go through and fix
- ex: "Chitimacha young girls and women learned to weave baskets from the river cane... and gathering wild plants." (Early Life) (the tense changes from past to present)
- ex: "It was a double-woven, large, lidded basket which had taken 2 women weeks to produce." (Marketing the baskets) (the wording is just a little awkward and you might want to write out the word two)
Other than that, I think you have a lot of really good information in here and it was nice to read!

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- There are some parts that need to be a bit more neutral, i.e. try not to use words like "Unfortunately" in the early life section
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- It seems evenly spread out
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall, you do a nice job of keeping it mostly neutral but I think you should go through and try to take out words that put emotion in if that makes sense (like unfortunately or very, etc).
You also use passive voice throughout it (I have that problem all the time so I get it) so just try to take out the "may's and "might"s unless it is necessary. (its mostly in the beginning of the article)

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- You use the Usner article for the majority of the article but I'm not sure how much you could find on Christine. I cannot see them either but I'm assuming that they are reliable especially since one of them is their own website.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- In doing a quick search, I could not find much about her but I did find the Usner article so I would say that they reflect literature on the topic.
Are the sources current?
- Yes
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- No links yet

Sources and references evaluation

It's a bit Usner heavy right now but I'm not sure what you can really do about that.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes it flows together nicely
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- There are some sentences that have awkward wording.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- It is organized well.

Organization evaluation

I know you aren't done with formatting so I won't put anything about that but otherwise it flows nicely right now.

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?
- Yes
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- There are 3 that I can see. There's probably other information on Christine Navarro Paul but I'm not sure how easy it is to access it.
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?
- The version I am looking at does not have an info box but the sandbox version does. Again the formatting is not finished so I can't speak on it.
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- No links yet

New Article Evaluation

It looks good!

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- It is an actual article now so I would say it's improved.
What are the strengths of the content added?
- You have evenly dispersed information and have given a voice to a story that is not on wikipedia yet.
How can the content added be improved?
- See the above sections

Overall evaluation

Overall I think it looks good! You just need to review your work to fix any grammar/passive voice. I really enjoyed reading your article and I look forward to seeing it completed!