User:Aliciab5334/Regina Gwynn/DerekE9831 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include 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?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

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

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Aliciab5334, Eric godbout24, Hailey720

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[edit]

Lead[edit]

There's a lot of good information here, but I think it's a bit too much for a lead section. A lot of the information in here would be better suited to a different section, maybe one about "early life," "education," or "career." This section would be better-suited with just a few sentences that briefly describe who Regina Gwynn is and what she does and has accomplished, without going into any of that in great detail. That can be accomplished in later sections that naturally flow from what is mentioned in the lead.

I noticed that the first citation isn't until about halfway through the lead section. The more citations throughout your article, the better. I'm sure that the information you provided up to that point came from one or several of your sources so it'd be good to see those citations at the end of the sentences so the reader can track where that information came from.

Article Body[edit]

I think readability could be improved a bit by breaking the paragraphs down. Right now this is all one big paragraph that transitions from idea to idea. Although they may all be related, I think if it's broken down topic-by-topic in separate paragraphs, it'd be easier to read. Also, some of the information may be better suited for other sections entirely. Of course, it looks like you haven't really implemented sections yet, which could be another improvement you could make to your draft.

Also in this section, the article starts to drift away from the focus. Towards the end, with the sentence beginning "As 2018 progressed," the article begins discussed BWTT exclusively. Although Regina Gwynn may be associated with the group, unless she specifically had something to do with what's mentioned in the last couple of sentences, it's probably best to do away with them so the article's purpose and focus remains clear.

References[edit]

Your reference section looks great so far. If the group could find just one or two more I think it'd make your article even stronger. Also, I think it'd be good to spread the use of your references around a bit more throughout the article. There are several unsupported sentences that, like I mentioned earlier, I'm sure have a reference that you simply haven't cited yet. Of course, not every reference will be used more than once, but if you can find more places to use a reference throughout an article, so you aren't just leaning on one or two for all of your information, I think it'll reinforce the article overall.

Overall Impression[edit]

I think you guys have a good draft here and clearly understand the information you've found for Regina in your references. Other than more citations needed throughout the article, I think the biggest issue may be with how it's written. Don't get me wrong, the writing is very good and easy to read. But the problem with it, in my opinion, is that it comes across as a narrative. Rather than simply being told the information, it's written a bit like a story. I may be in the wrong here, but from my experience, a Wikipedia biography should be a bit more "boring." What I mean by that is, in the lead section, you mentioned that Regina's father and grandfather were both business owners, therefore she "knew" she wanted to run a business. This kind of assumes knowing what her thought process was, which might be a perfectly valid statement if the sentence was supported by a citation.

Ultimately, I think your group has a lot of good information in your article, it just needs a bit of organization into clear sections and sub-sections, and just re-wording of some sentences so that they come across as more informational and neutral.