 | 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.
Additional Resources
Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
Thank you for your feedback.
Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Alex! Here's my peer review for you,
Lead
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - A new lead has not been added to reflect new changes, so I'm sure if this is an area you are focusing on editing or now/ If you are still working on it I would make sure you at least add a note on your draft page saying that you are currently working to improve on this area.
Content
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes so far I see that you've added new citations to existing info in the original article; for example the article "Arnold Bennett and Home Management: Domestic Efficiency" to support the statement under the "Management" section. Also looks like you've added a new section titled "Suburban Life" ; however it's a little unclear what new information has been added and what's from the original article because there is no note about what has been edited or added; maybe you could focus on a specific area? or putting a note down in this sandbox what your goals are to improve the article might be helpful as reminder for yourself and others.
- Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes many of the articles you've added into the article are fairly new (from the 2000's)
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I think if you were to move the "Suburban life" section as a subsection under "20th century" it might more sense considering most of the points you've added to "Suburban life" are situated in a historical context; and that way you could integrate more of your sources ( the new ones you've found from your bibliography) into the section.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes it does you are addressing women which are a highly underrepresented area; also in the "servants" section you have added some information about indigenous servants (again another underrepresented are) : I think if you were to add to this section as well, for example by adding when exactly they were used would be very helpful to the reader because it currently sounds a bit vague by saying "Indigenous people have been used as servants ....for many years" -->(this part is a bit vague when reading it).
Tone and Balance
- Is the content added neutral? - For the most part yes, for example when you say "Women in this occupation were not treated fairly in most cases" by adding the part "most cases" makes it sound neutral/ you're not making any insertions which is good. However, I think when you say "The wives were expected to perform the housekeeping and child care while the men worked even if the wife had a job too." : I'm not entirely sure, I think the way the sentence might be a little funky, maybe you could change the sentence structure by saying "both stay at home mothers/housewives and working women were expected to perform housekeeping and child care duties while the men worked/or way at work:" that way you'll add more clarity and keep its tone neutral.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Like mentioned earlier in the "wikipedia equity gaps" question, when you added information about indigenous women being used as servants I think this was a really good contribution and your able to give a diverse range of women (not just the white women) representation in this article.; Maybe this would be an area you want to focus on more (I'm not sure just a suggestion) by adding different types of women (race/class) and their experiences are how they fit into these sections of homemaking that you are contributing. Also - alot of the articles we've been reading thus far expand on this idea too (homemaking relation to women and race/class) which might be helpful considering we already have and done the reading.
Sources and References
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Some but not all. Here's some examples from your sandbox draft where I think citations might be useful to improve the article:
-"In the late 1990s, marriage consisted in most cases of both wife and husband participating in homemaking." (considering there's a date "1990's putting a source as evidence would be good)
-"In contrast, a study performed by Hochschild in 1989, concluded that even when wives contributed more than 50% of the household income they often still performed more household labor than their husbands.(citation) Hochschild's study directly debunked the previous theory that women performed housework because they contributed significantly less to household income. Instead, the results of the study indicated that even in marriage dynamics where women contributed more than half of the household income, they still completed the vast majority of homemaking tasks" : I would put citations after the first sentence, since there's a statistic/percentage given and last sentence b/c its talking about results from the study.
-"Married women who are economically and emotionally dependent on their husbands are less likely to report the division of household labor as unfair. This significant group of married women felt that household labor reinforced their female gender identity and connection to femininity" : I'd include at least one citation here ; also "this significant group" is a little bit vague so maybe you could identify who they group is, would be helpful to readers. Or just cite where this information is from, would be helpful.
-Homemakers may manage household workers or "domestic workers". A citation after this sentence under the "servants" section would be helpful to help identify where the term domestic workers is coming from; like which authors in your bibliography or on the original version of the article talk about or use this term?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? (*additional question from Professor Heinz*) Yes, and you are using sources from our class which is great! I would look for outside sources now (meaning ones we haven't read in class - maybe looking on JSTOR or Project MUSE might be useful? or even looking in the footnote section of the sources you already have may lead you to different sources on the subject)
- Are the sources current? - Yes again you have a broad arrange of articles from the 1990s and 2000's
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, for example scholarship is written throughout different times giving it a varied/diverse perspective.
- 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.) - I think maybe finding more articles on homemaking outside of just the ones we've looked at in class would be really helpful, maybe some relating to your "Suburban life" section would be a good start./ Also I'm not sure if using "Experiences of a Hired Girl" would be necessarily good to use, it might lean towards making information your adding too bias since it's a secondary source but maybe you could reference to it and say "Some women felt like ____" or "In Experiences of a Hired Girl, which is (give context on what it is and when it was published)" then again things stay unbiased and neutral in tone and give the reader information on what this source is about.
Organization
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it easy to read; I think just going back and reading out loud will help catch any conflicts/errors too.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Here are some segments that I think could use fixing, just my suggestions:
-from the section "19th century" : "but if one only staid to think how countless and how onerous those duties really are, more respect would be paid to the faithful effort to perform the, and an added reverence extended to the mother who is also the housekeeper.": "perform the, and an added…" weird sentence structure
-could be one sentence instead of two: "The division of labor within the home promotes a healthy relationship between husband and wife. Concluding, that likelihood of increased happiness within marriage is vastly improved when homemaking is shared with the husband."
-: should probably include their first names as well for West and Zimmerman since this is the first time introducing authors? Or could say "Scholars (or "historians" if they are) West and Zimmerman." : "West and Zimmerman, concluded an analysis of over 487 couples and found that "women were rewarded for performing feminine behaviors, such as housework, whereas men receive positive reinforcement for engaging in masculine tasks, such breadwinning.""
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes it's broken down into sections/general headings and then with specific details. For example with the sections "Servants" "Management" and then the new one you've contributed "Suburban life" (*question: are these all seperate headings or do they fall into the "20th century" section as sub-headings? this is just something I was thinking about when looking at it again)
Overall impressions
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - It's a little hard to tell right now, I see you've added a few new citations and added a new section (Suburban life) but I think maybe just concentrating on this section and adding more citations to backup information will really help you focus your project while still improving the articles overall quality./ -Linking some of the important terms connected to home making might be helpful too! Like "breadwinning" could be linked as "breadwinner" if there's a Wikipedia page for it./ -"Servants" section: could use more information from "domesticating colonizers" by Haskins article to help expand on the info you already have here; for example what kind of "hard labor" ? (giving more details/less generalizations)/ -maybe expand on this area within the Suburban life section "The wives were expected to perform the housekeeping and child care" maybe thinking about when and giving historical context would be helpful
- What are the strengths of the content added? Adding the "suburban life" section was really key, it's a really central point to homemaking and I'm surprised it wasn't included already so that's awesome that you did! Also I like how your representing underrepresented people within this topic (you added some information on indigenous people to the "Servants" section) I would suggest you keep adding to both of these strengths :)
Additional Questions
- Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? You have 5 sources so far which is great, however you might what to find another secondary source apart from just using the primary source "Experiences of a Hired Girl"
- Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Definitely women in the place and home is very connected to Homemaking which will be very helpful for you context wise.
- Does your peer add historical context to their article? Yes. (*see "overall impressions" for comments)
- Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further? (*see "overall impressions" for my suggestions on ways to improve your article and how to continue your strengths).
-Jaida