User:Tprice98115/Negrophilia/Juliewagoner12 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?

Tprice98115

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tprice98115/Negrophilia?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Negrophilia

Evaluate the drafted changes

There are currently no changes made to the article or sandbox draft of the user who I am assigned to peer review. That being said, all of the suggestions I will make below are based on the starting state of the article at this moment.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the sheer lack of information in the article; it is currently very short. Additionally, I think that more terms could be linked to their respective wikipedia pages in order for readers to easily learn more context about the article's content (ex "avant-garde" at the end of the second paragraph). It also seems like a good amount of the information included in the article needs to be cited, and you could research this information in order to find articles or websites making claims about it and then input the citations. The bottom three references also look as if they are not properly cited, and need to be input to the wikipedia ref table. There also is not much media included in the article (just the one photo of Josephine Baker) and likely wikipedia has more media available for free use related to the topic that could enhance the article. The only sub-section included in the article is on the Bal Negre, so potentially in your research of Negrophilia you could focus on additional aspects of the subject to add as sub-sections to the article (maybe Negrophilia in popular culture or media?). I also noticed that the talk page of the article will likely not be of help, as no one has contributed to it since 2017. However, the latest comment makes a good point: information about African-American artists migrating to France post-WW2 like we have been learning about in class would be a great sub-section to add to the article. The article overall does seem neutrally-balanced, but the list of sources could be much more exhaustive.