User:DanaGhouse/Renée Watson/Gruzsa 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)
 * DanaGhouse, Rosie Dragon, and Jgrant89
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:DanaGhouse/Renée Watson

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the users added when the author was born as well as the fact that she is a teaching artist.
 * 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?
 * It does not
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information in the lead is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise.

Lead evaluation
The group has a very solid lead, and they added a few key details that give a better picture of the author.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content is related to the author and her life and career.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all of the information and the resources seem up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the content that is included serves to give the reader better knowledge of the author. I might recommend in the Contributions section to add the titles of her pieces in Black Enough and The (Other) F Word if you can find them.

Content evaluation
I think you all did a great job! You seem to have found a substantial amount of info that was missing from the wiki page and have greatly enhanced it with more details about Watson's life.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * For the most part, yes. I would hesitate to put anything about Watson's feelings in the article, just because emotions aren't strictly facts, even though they came from an interview with Watson herself. For example, in the section about the I, Too, Arts Collective section, I would suggest editing a bit where you wrote that Watson was disappointed to learn about the home of Langston Hughes not being open to the public and instead say something along the lines of "After learning the former home of Harlem Renaissance author Langston Hughes was not open to the public, she found the current owner and shared her vision to open up the home to visitors.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not at all.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All of the viewpoints seem to be equally represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I don't believe so. The content strictly tells the reader about the things that Watson has done in her life.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, I think you all did a great job at keeping everything neutral. I would just double check in a few places that what you have is just the facts and only the facts. For example, the first line in the Writing section, "Watson has been writing for a long time, since she was in the second grade" could easily be condensed to "Watson has been writing since she was in the second grade."

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of the content is backed by interviews with Watson herself, which would be primary sources, but content is also backed by author bios, articles, and reviews of Watson's works. The only sources that raises a red flag to me is the Rethinking Schools piece because it is specifically written by Watson herself, and I don't know if wikipedia would consider that a reliable unbiased source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, all sources are relevant to the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, most sources were from within the past couple of years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links I checked worked.

Sources and references evaluation
I think you all were able to find a ton of sources to help out with the article, but I might reconsider that Rethinking Schools piece that I mentioned above.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, everything was well-written as well as easy and enjoyable to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, there are several sections that focus on different facets of Watson's life.

Organization evaluation
I have no complaints on the organization, I think you all did great!

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?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?