User:Apryo574/Beth Piatote/HollandKatherine 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

 * Apryo574, LOC2020, Ashley-Rae.CW, EricaRPGriffith
 * User:LOC2020/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation:
The Lead does an adequate job of describing what the article is going to talk about, but the flow just isn't quite there yet, it appears too concise and choppy. Because almost every line begins with either "Beth Piatote" or "Piatote" it's like the sentences are in fragments or bullet points. The authors have all the information they need, but have to find a way to make it all connect. They mention her actual, tangible job and her education in the Lead, but don't give either one its own notable section throughout the rest of the page. I think that it would be beneficial to do so, especially because even if these particular authors don't have what they believe is a substantial amount of information to fill those sections quite yet, just having the headings available opens the floor up to other authors to add into once these articles go live and public.

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?

Content evaluation:
All the content is on-topic with the main subject, nothing is disconnected. After taking an in-depth look at the dates on the works cited list, all of the information appears to be up-to-date and reliable as there appears to be an extensive time-span from 2009 to 2019. All of the content that has been added to the page is noteworthy and certainly belongs in a bibliographical setting, but I hope the authors are not afraid to really dissect Beth Piatote's life and add any scrap of information they can and make it really rich in detail and substance. Make lots of headings!

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?

Tone and balance evaluation:
These authors have done an excellent job at staying neutral and keeping the content fact-based and the tone professional; there is no evidence of bias or persuasion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
The links work, the sources are current because they reflect years all the way to 2019, each source reflects the information available, however the authors should cite where they found the information about her awards and how they found out where she went to post-secondary and what degrees she received. Always remember each in-text citation covers all information immediately before it.

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?

Organization evaluation:
The page is easy to read, no jargon, it is a little too concise but that is easy to fix. As expected, spelling and grammar looks great. As I mentioned earlier, the organization is really good, the authors are making use of their headings, but I definitely believe they should make more and give everything its own category.

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 visual elements to date.

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?

New Article Evaluation:
The page does present sources that are independent of direct analysis of Beth Piatote, specifically, so it does fall under the guidelines for Wikipedia's Notability requirements. For a first draft, there are 12 sources total which creates for a good environment of reliability. It follows the classic Wikipedia format with headings and sub-headings. The page links to Beth Piatote's novel, The Beadworkers, so if individuals are looking for her book then it is more than likely that they will find her as well.

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?

Overall evaluation:
I think the page is a good first draft and that it has a lot of potential and room for more information and detail. The strengths are definitely the neutrality of the tone and the directness of the information. I believe that more headings and more detail would be a great addition to their article.