User:Aschmidt32/Walter Dean Myers/Tybrarian 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)
 * Aschmidt32's work on the Walter Dean Myers article
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Aschmidt32/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, they do not appear to have updated the Lead section. The sandbox contains revisions to only the Personal Life section from the existing Myers article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * There is no lead section in the sandbox draft.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is no lead section in the sandbox draft.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There is no lead section in the sandbox draft.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * There is no lead section in the sandbox draft.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Generally, yes. The relationship between Herbert & Florence Dean and Myers needs to be more clear- were they family friends, grandparents, foster parents...? Myers' being raised in Harlem is good info to have. Author does a good job linking Myers' childhood struggles to his career as an author and as a youth advocate.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes- it is comprehensive and covers Myers' personal life in detail from cradle to grave.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The childhood and youth section could be shortened, as there is quite a bit of extraneous detail. The section from "a teacher urged him to use writing" to "Stuyvesant High School" could be cut without harming the article.

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?
 * No, the article writes a balanced viewpoint with a focus on facts instead of opinion.
 * 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?
 * The article is well-cited. Some of the sources are questionable though, namely 1, 4, and 5 link to Myers' personal website and 3 is Myers' page on a publisher's site.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there is a diverse variety of reputable sources represented.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, though some are paywalled like 2 for JSTOR and 19 for YALSA.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the writing style is audience-appropriate. There is a clunky sentence in the Personal Life section, paragraph three, at the beginning. The phrase "he worked to show troubled teens that reading is a necessity in life" reads oddly to me.
 * 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?
 * The content added updates only one section of the larger existing article, and thus doesn't affect the overall organization.

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


 * 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?

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?
 * It has added some good information to the personal life section, such as where Myers was raised and his inspiration to start writing for children and teens.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * One of the things I want to learn from an article about an author is what motivated them to begin writing, which the content added here explains to my satisfaction.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The article as a whole needs attention, not just the Personal Life section. The "Works" section in the existing article, for example, is a hot mess and could use some serious reorganization. The content added here is good but it only touches one section of the article.