User:Abbymach/A Lesson Before Dying/Ddcaple 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?

(provide username)

Link to draft you're reviewing

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

[edit]

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • No, the lead section of the article has not been updated due that it still emphasizes the previous information regarding his accomplishment for his 1993 novel A Lesson Before Dying. As so, it does not include or summarize any other recent additions made to the body of the article.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the Lead of the article does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic as it states, "Ernest James Gaines was an American author whose works have been taught in college classrooms and translated into many languages." The sentence effectively introduces the topic (Gaines) by stating his full name, identity, profession, and the importance of his contributions.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, the Lead does not provide a brief description. Though it does give a summary of him as a whole, it does not give the broader structure of the article, including a detailed discussion that will probably be put later on but focuses on his early life, themes, influence, or legacy.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, it does not include information that is not present in the article. All the details mentioned in the Lead, such as his identity, the critical claim of A Lesson Before Dying, and his recognition through the awards, are mentioned in the main body of the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise and as focused. It gives important information about Gaines without adding too much detail or even overwhelming whoever may read the article.

Content

[edit]

Guiding Questions

[edit]

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content added to the article is relevant to the topic. Based on how Gaines was honored with the 2023 USPS Forever stamp is highly important. It details his continuous impact and how his allows the audience to understand his legacy as an author.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, the content is up-to-date. Again regarding the 2023 USPS Forever stamp. It helps make sure that the article remains current and that Gaines's contributions continue to be celebrated and taught currently.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Currently, everything on the article and the topic, seems to be accurate and important.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Yes, the article does address topic related to historically underrepresented populations, mainly African American literature and the experiences of African Americans in the United States.

Tone and Balance

[edit] Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, the content added is neutral. All the Information maintained a factual tone. To these additions, it presents the information and details without being subjective.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, there are no claims in the article that appear heavily biased towards any position. The article keeps a neutral and factual tone highlighting key details and aspects of Gaine's life.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?
  • It is currently balanced between the two. There are really no overrepresented viewpoints, but once they continue to make edits to the article focus on the underrepresentation such as cultural or community influence, how it could be interpreted in academic institutions, and to how it would relevant in today's time.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the content added to the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. The addition such as the feature on the 2023 USPS Forever stamp, gives notable, factual information without using persuasive or emotionally charged language.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

[edit]

• 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?