User:Liuya1002/Tichkematse/Lupe.btista Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Liuya1002

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Liuya1002/Tichkematse?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

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

Tichkematse

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.)

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? Yes Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, they provide an ample amount of information that had previously been lacking on the original Wikipedia page. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and well structured. Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it talks about Tichkemtase in a way that explains who he was in a way that was previously not explained. It gives Tichkemtase a new light in media, giving him more depth as a person that previous editors did. Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it is strictly informational. Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Are the sources current? They’re fairly current, some sources are from 2003, but this topic isn’t covered much so I think that’s fair considering the sparse sources of information that someone could find on Tichkemtase himself. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes. 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.) No. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. 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? The article is much more complete and depicts Tichkemtase in a more detailed manner, helping bring some depth and understanding about Tichkemaste’s work. What are the strengths of the content added? The sources are fairly neutral and informative, giving people a good idea of who Tichkemaste was. How can the content added be improved? I think if there were a section about Tichkematse’s life after working at the Smithsonian or after being held at Fort Marion, it would make the article itself stronger. Additionally, if there is any information about Tichkemtase’s family or descendants, it would be interesting to see. 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.