User:Cingham/Pretty Mouth and Green My Eyes/Emmalovespinacoladas 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

 * I am reviewing Cingham’s article
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cingham/Article Draft

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead now mentions publication dates, where it was published, and in what series. This is a big improvement from the original lead the article had. Plus, the one sentence summary describes the situation much better overall than the original article did, since the original article summarized the story rather confusingly.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, I like it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As of right now (about 7:40pm on 11/4), the Themes section as well as Reception and interpretation section could use more elaboration/content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all claims are reasonable and only based upon text or in reference to articles.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I did not find any.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it simply tries to let the readers know about this short story by Salinger.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I find that they do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, two sources are even from 2019.
 * 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? I find it very clear and concise, with only little to no accounts of awkward phrasing.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I found.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I feel the content categories added are helpful to the story and understanding it.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it includes an actual image of the text in its original publication from The New Yorker. I would be down for some more photos though, maybe just one or two more. Just throw in a photo of J.D. or something.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

For New Articles Only (N/A to this article)
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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This should all go on the talk page. . . where is the article draft? ProfHanley (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)