User:Schnickelfritz66/Women Strike for Peace/Cherubj 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

Whose work are you reviewing?

https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/23omoell04

https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Schnickelfritz66

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Schnickelfritz66/Women Strike for Peace
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Women Strike for Peace

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

- Well done on the minor edits to correct the typos and refine word choice in the lead.

Content:

- The content added is relevant to the topic of the Women's Strike for Peace (WSP) organization, covering its formation, motivations, and activities.

- The information appears up-to-date, focusing on historical events such as the Capitol strike on November 1st.

- The article primarily deals with the WSP's activities and does not deviate into unrelated topics.

- The article addresses an equity gap by highlighting the role of historically underrepresented populations, specifically women, in peace activism.

Tone and Balance:

- The content added maintains a neutral tone, presenting information objectively.

- There are no apparent claims heavily biased toward a particular position.

- The viewpoints presented are balanced, focusing on the perspectives of the WSP and its supporters.

- The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another.

Sources and References:

- The content is thoroughly supported by reliable secondary sources, ensuring credibility and accuracy. However, it's important to note that the in-text citations are manually written and not set in the correct format. To ensure proper citation, it's recommended to use the citation tool in the top home tab or utilize the shortcut Ctrl+Shift+K, which will automatically footnote the citations based on their numbering.

Organization:

- The content added appears well-written, being concise, clear, and easy to read.

- There are no apparent grammatical or spelling errors.

- The content is well-organized, with clear section headings that reflect the major points of the topic.

Overall Impressions:

- The content added improves the overall quality of the article, making it completer and more informative.