User:Angelacgeorge/Loving Her/Roygbiv99 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? (User: Angelacgeorge)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Angelacgeorge/Loving Her

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is balanced

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?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? the Literary reception and criticism section could use some work but everything else looks good
 * 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? Besides the novel, is there anything else you could add as a citation? For example, maybe find a source for your claim "The novel is widely considered to be one of the first, if not the first, published piece of black lesbian literature" in the header. This should be easy to find in any scholarly criticism of the novel
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Needs more sources if possible, I think Wikipedia has a 2 citation minimum in order to be published
 * Are the sources current? Needs sources
 * 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
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media
* (If you really want an image on your article you could take your own picture of the cover of the novel and it might pass the copyright guidelines but idk im really confused about all that stuff)

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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? Not yet
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes immensely
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Gives a great overview of the author, historical context, significance, and plot of the novel. Good structure.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just find a few sources and finish up the awards section (maybe link to that review of the book we read in class?) and you're golden!