Contents

User:Charleston Baker/Sexual victimization of Native American women/Don'tTakeYourselfTooSeriously Peer Review

General info[edit]

• Whose work are you reviewing? Charleston Baker
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Sexual victimization of Native American women

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
• 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? Concise

Lead evaluation B[edit]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? No
• Is the content added up-to-date? No
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, content missing about why Native women are more likely to victims of sexual violence and the history of this issue
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, indigenous women

Content evaluation C-[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? No
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Native women underrepresented
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation C-[edit]

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation C+[edit]

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I don't see content added by the user
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Spelling and grammatical errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes but need more

Organization evaluation B[edit]

Images and Media[edit]

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?

Images and media evaluation[edit]

For New Articles Only[edit]

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?
• 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?

New Article Evaluation[edit]

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I am unsure what/if content has been added
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation: C[edit]