User:Ahdavis07/The Quadroons (short story)/Bbelliott1875 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)
 * I'm reviewing Group Three's article on "The Quadroons."
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * N/A

Lead evaluation
Currently, this article doesn't possess a Lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Generally, yes. Everything added is appropriate for the article, but the language could use a tune-up. Also, some more sources wouldn't hurt.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It seems to be.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think the "Themes" section could use a little work. It definitely belongs in the article, but I think "Love" and "Death" are a little weak. Is there anything else we can delve into there?

Content evaluation
Overall, it's decent content, but the language needs a little work here and there.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, you do a good job of remaining neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think we could add some more meat to most of this article's sections. Right now, "Themes" stands out as being a little starved. It basically reads as a restatement of the plot, and it could be much more than that.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it's as objective as it should be.

Tone and balance evaluation
Again, my prime interest here is to see a little bit more information thrown in the mix here. You've got a good skeleton, and, if you get some more sources/ tighten up your language, you could have a killer article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Mostly, the sources seem fine. However, I'm curious what the Good Reads inclusion is for. You also don't need to cite every line if you're using the same source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * While I haven't looked too deeply into what scholarship exists on this topic, I would presume that these sources are what could be found.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
You could look at incorporating some more sources, and you should look at the location/ frequency of your citations as well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Like I said above, the language is kind of clunky. I would go back over this with a fine-tooth comb.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, some of the article is pretty rife with errors. I'd go over the whole thing carefully.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I would say so.

Organization evaluation
Mainly, you should look at how things are said. There's a fair amount of grammatical errors/ weird phrasing.

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
The article currently has no images.

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?
 * 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?
 * Yes, you've added in a nice basis of info that's super appropriate for a first draft.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * You've got a decent foundation here. With a little editing and addition, you'll be paid back exponentially.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think more information/ stronger writing are the most important things to look at this time.

Overall evaluation
You've got a decent place to start from. With a little fine-tuning, you should be in great shape in no time.