User:Breano21/Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945/Bsteel2 Peer Review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

• Whose work are you reviewing? I am reviewing the work of Breano21.
• Link to draft you're reviewing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Equal_Rights_Act_of_1945

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I think the introductory sentence could use more detail. I think the fact that is the first anti-discrimination act in the United States is important, but I do not think it is suitable for a introductory sentence.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I do think the article contains a suitable description of all of the major sections without going overboard with details.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. All of the information given in the Lead is also covered in the following sections.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Besides adding more to the introductory sentence, I think the Lead has the right amount of detail that prepares readers for the other sections of the article.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? As far as what I can see, all of the information in the article is relevant to the topic at hand.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is, as far as what I can see.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think if possible, adding more details to the "Provisions" section would add more quality, but if it is not possible, then it is good as is.
• 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 relate to historically underrepresented populations or topics, such as Alaska Natives.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? All the information that I see is informative, and there is no language used to indicates any sort of bias. Therefore, I believe that the content is quite neutral for what a Wikipedia article should be.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Again, the article seems to be strictly informative rather than biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Well, I think it would be appropriate to add more content having to do with opposition to the Anti-Discrimination Act. This was in 1945, of course, so I am sure there was a lot of backlash towards such an act, despite it passing.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article's intentions are not to persuade. The article is strictly information and presents information as factual, rather than giving opinions or using biased language.

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is absolutely easy to understand.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were a couple of grammatical errors involving commas in the background section where it first mentions Elizabeth Peratrovich and her husband, but I decided to make those minor edits myself.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? While I think the provisions section could go into more detail, I think the section are definitely well-organized and reflect the major points of the topic quite well.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. Since the image is in black and white, it definitely shows the times it was taken in.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes. I think the caption of the article easily gets the point of the image across.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? As far as I can tell, yes the one image in the article does.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I think due to the the subject being discussed in the background section, it was appropriate to place the image right next to such information. The background discussed discrimination that was put upon Alaska Natives, and the image clearly displays an act of discrimination against Alaska Natives.

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, I believed it does.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I think the list of sources is quite reasonable for such an article, although I would like to see more content added in regards to provisions. For the most part, the list of sources does reflect the 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? Yes it does, and these section headings are quite clear and organized well.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, the article does link to other articles, so it is definitely more discoverable by others.

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe that the quality of the article is definitely enhanced. In addition, I think because of the content, the article feels more complete, but of course there is always more content that could be added.
• What are the strengths of the content added? I think there are quite a few strengths. Firstly, the content added never really strays away from the topic at hand, and it is all relevant to the overall topic, including what lead up to the enactment of the Anti-Discrimination Act. In addition, while the article is fairly minimal, I think it gets the topic across to readers quite effectively without overwhelming the reader.
• How can the content added be improved? As stated before, I think more detail added to the provisions section would be appropriate. In addition, I think changing the introductory sentence to the article to a simple definition of what the Act is would make more sense. I think the fact that it was the first anti-discrimination act in the United States is significant, but I do not think it is appropriate for an introductory sentence. That seems like something that would be added at the end of the Lead.

Overall, the article is very well-composed, with a few things I would change up a little bit. I did go out of my way to fix a couple grammatical errors, but that's it. In addition, the article gets the point across quite clearly and simply without being convoluted.