User:Ahdavis07/The Quadroons (short story)/Dcwinchester 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? Ahdavis07/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? You guy's don't seem to have a lead, so you may wanna go back and add one.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? NA
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? NA
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? NA
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? NA

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all information is important and relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Almost all content has been from the last decade, making almost all the sources up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The lead is the only bit of content that I think you need to add.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The language and content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The tragic mulatto trope could use more representation here.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Almost all content has a citation after it. The only thing I could think of to add to it is to divide your sources up and mix them. Right now, it's the same source three times here, next paragraph has another three sources from another source, etc. Maybe mix them so it seems more reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes; almost all of them are from the 2010's and beyond.
 * 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. The only bit I would work on is the plot. There are some grammatical errors and wording that makes it hard to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The plot summary has a view grammatical errors and skipped words, as does the characters heading. But nothing that I saw outside of that
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, except a lead

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

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? There are a good chunk of sources that provide a range of details on this story, so I would say yes.
 * 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? Yes, except it needs a lead
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Towards the end, but I would go back and add some links in the background section too.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, but I would expand on the influence heading.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very good citations and really expanded analysis of themes and background.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would add a lead, expand on the influences (specifically the tragic mulatto), fix the errors in the plot/character sections, and spread the citations out.