User:Cry598a/Jan Spivey Gilchrist/Cjkennedy15 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) Cry598a, Tybrarian
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cry598a/Jan Spivey Gilchrist

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead was left as is, the students asserted it was well written.
 * 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? There are some recognitions noted that could be expanded upon in the Legacy section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead was not edited.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the sections added were Early life, Career, Legacy and Publications list.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I could discern.

Content evaluation
The content covered the life and professional impact of Gilchrist, and provided a comprehensive list of publications that added quite a lot of information to the Wiki article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, to a point. Some descriptive words that imply personal feelings of the subject are present in the Early Life and Career sections.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall the tone and balance were mostly neutral, some reference to reactions and feeling of Gilchrist were mentioned in the article, but not the students personal feelings.

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? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources I checked worked and the information was up to date.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The additions are well written and reflect their headings well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I identified. The following sentence reads a little strange: A child, Ronke Diarra, was born of the marriage but Van Johnson's lack of support for her burgeoning artistic career caused the marriage to end.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The organization of the information was easy to follow and read, the formatting of the publication list was neatly displayed.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? There was a great deal of content added to give a lot more information on the subject.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Most of the information added clear and concise, not drifting into essay or emotions.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would look at the Early Life and Career section to make sure that the information is fact based, and less about painting a descriptive emotional picture.

Overall evaluation
I found the additions very helpful in getting a broad and deeper picture of Gilchrist's life and work. The list of works shows how much she has contributed in a variety of ways to literature and art.

Response to Peer Review
Thank you for your honest evaluation of our article! We appreciate the feedback that you provided and are working to improve the article. I know you mentioned one sentence that seemed a little strange. I'll see if I can find a better way to word that but unfortunately, very little information is provided about Gilchrist's children. I couldn't determine a birth date/year or gender for Ronke and I didn't want to make assumptions or leave this information out. We hope you're able to read the final article when it's posted! Again, thank you!