User:Cjkennedy15/Bud, Not Buddy/AdyAsc 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 peer reviewing Cjkennedy15's draft.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Bud, Not Buddy

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 is slightly updated with mechanical additions and has a good introductory sentence. The content of the first sentence states the titled work, author, and year of publication; while the rest of the content in the lead is a brief summary of the novel. There is no brief summary of the article's major sections like contextual background, reception and analysis, awards, and stage productions.The lead is concise, but it also does not incorporate much information nor does it lead a reader to have a general sense of what will be covered in the rest of the article.

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
The content added is relevant. I like how there was a section for reception/analysis as it gives readers an idea of how the novel was received, and a list of possible themes that are discussed in a classroom/academic setting. I do want to point out that in this section there is a typo. Meyer's is mentioned to be the author of Bud, Not Buddy versus Christopher Paul Curtis.

I also liked the addition of the setting and background section. However, I did want more information. For example, Hoovervilles are mentioned to "reflect [the] importance of historical context in the novel" but why. Why are they pillars of importance during the Great Depression? Hoovervilles are also mentioned to be a "unique result" of the Great Depression but again, why? The link to Hooverville is helpful, but I think that briefly stating the significance of Hooverville's and their importance in the novel rather than just saying it is is important will add more contextual knowledge for a reader. There is also a slight typo in the first sentence of this section: "the Curtis" is written and instead "the" can be erased. Lastly, there is a typo in the last sentence of this section, too.

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
The content added is neutral. The voice, too, is neutral. There is no indication that there is underlying bias. I also don't believe that the content added attempts to persuade the reader as it is informational, briefly summarizing the novel, it's reception, the awards received, and other adapted work.

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 new content is backed up by university and organization presses when relaying information particularly in the stage adaption section. The information is reliable and current, conveying the nature of productions that have taken place in the past. There is no mention of critical reception of stage production, which may be seen as a gap in the literature.

Two of the links are broken (1 and 11).

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 content is well-written, but there are a few places where there are grammatical/mechanical errors. These are quick fixes and I mention some of these errors above. The content added is also clear and easy to read. I like that sections were added to this article - sections where content was missing. Before the article was edited, it was bare bones and needed to be filled with more information regarding the work.

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
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?
 * 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
N/A

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
Overall, the content added to the article has greatly improved it. Before the content additions, the article briefly conveyed a summary and plot of the highlighted work. The additional sections have added more introspection, especially in the setting/background section. I think that there is still a lot of content that could be addressed and unpacked that would greatly improve the article. For example, more information of the discourse surrounding the work would give readers a wider range of themes.