User:Archeddar/The Women of Brewster Place (novel)/Cryoung4 Peer Review

General info
(User:Archeddar)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Women_of_Brewster_Place_%28novel%29&diff=1187660384&oldid=1181324184:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The Women of Brewster Place (novel):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

LEAD:


 * The Lead was adjusted properly to reflect the added content for the most part. For example, an extensive plot summary, list of the characters, and an analysis was added. The lead addresses the plot summary and list of characters by mentioning them, but it could add a bit more about the analysis. There is a section detailing the themes and it could be placed here.
 * The introductory sentence does describe the main purpose of the article.
 * The lead doesn't include a full description, but it does reference small amounts of what each section will be about, minus the analysis.
 * No.
 * Lead is concise, but could include a tad more as stated before.

CONTENT:


 * The content added is directly related to the topic and gives a better understanding of what the topic is.
 * The content added is up to date.
 * All content that is discussed in the lead is present throughout the article. The article is not missing any material that was previously referenced. If there is more information to add, then it can be added, but nothing is missing.
 * The article delves into a novel that is centered around seven Black women. I believe the article does deal with an equity gap, but it does a proper job of discussing it.

TONE AND BALANCE:


 * The content added is neutral and does not take a stance either way. The plot summary details what happens without leaning to one characters side. The characters are listed and described without bias. The analysis section does the same.
 * The only image comes from the infobox and it is properly formatted. I do not think anymore media or photos is necessary.
 * All viewpoints are evenly represented. The analysis section has two components and each of them are roughly even in representation.
 * Content added does not attempt to persuade you.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES:


 * All content added as a reputable source attached and is properly cited.
 * The sources are thorough and detail the content that was added.
 * Sources are current and include distinguished individuals from different areas.
 * The links do properly work.

ORGANIZATION:


 * The content is clear and concise. Very well written.
 * No grammatical or spelling errors that I came across.
 * The article has good organization and flows well.

IMAGES AND MEDIA:


 * As stated before, the only image is the infobox and it is done properly

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:


 * Overall the content that was added did improve the article. Before the changes that were made, the article was lacking a lot of substance. The article is much more complete after the revisions. The strengths of the article, in my opinion, are the conciseness of the content. The plot summary, although lengthy, does not seem as though it has too much unnecessary information. The analysis does a good job of explaining why this element is present and why it matters all in a timely manner. As stated before, I think the lead could be bolstered to include more information regarding the upcoming analysis section. It touches upon themes of the book, but sisterhood is not present. Great work!