User:Ahdavis07/The Quadroons (short story)/Ashtayoh Peer Review

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Ahdavis07/ The Quadroons (short story)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ahdavis07/The Quadroons (short story)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I didn't see a lead. The first thing listed was the contents box and the background. (The article draft heading should be deleted)
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Again, I didn't see a lead.
 * 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? ...

Lead evaluation
No lead listed

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes! Info on the author and her work, the plot summary, influences, themes, characters, adaptations, publication history, reception... All of this is relevant and very good information to have on a Wiki article!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I didn't notice any.

Content evaluation
Very good content information!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I noticed
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the story is summarized well.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
I think the tone and balance are good. The story summary and background info are given well and without biased opinions.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It looks as though the information within the article has citations throughout the whole article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Most seem to be!
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seem relevant and they work. The information given throughout the article is cited and looks great.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Everything seems to flow well. It is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did notice a few grammar mistakes and spelling errors. I would also have everyone go through and make sure the spelling and grammar are correct as well as everything being read as though it was all written by one person.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I believe so!

Organization evaluation
Great job with organization and content!

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?

Images and media evaluation
No images or media.

For New Articles Only
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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes. The sources seem to be great, although the more, the better!
 * 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? I think the article flow is great. I would delete the heading "Article draft" though (I'm sure you will).
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? I don't think I noticed any words that would link to other Wiki articles. I would definitely do that to help get your article published!

New Article Evaluation
The only suggestion I have is to link words to other Wiki articles!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. The content added is really helping the article to come together.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content and information being added is relevant and the sources seem like great help to back up your article.
 * How can the content added be improved? The only suggestion I have is to go through and fix grammar and spelling mistakes, link words to other articles, and add more sources for an even better researched wiki page!

Overall evaluation
Great job! Can't wait to see it when it (hopefully!) gets published!