User:DanaGhouse/Renée Watson/ParkerHeustess 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? DanaGhouse
 * 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.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead describes the author, and every major section is covered or (like Personal Life) is self explanatory.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Absolutely yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the citations are all recent or within recent enough time to seem relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not believe there is any missing content, and all of the added content is related to the topic at hand.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral and not pushing a position.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the information is presented in a neutral fashion.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I do not see anything of that sort within the content.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, I see reliable sources added to all added content, from primary sources such as interviews or news pieces.
 * 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? I checked 10 links at random and they all work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well written, concise, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, the content appears to be grammatically correct.  There are some minor errors, most notably on a second reading: "Watson has taught poetry at DreamYard and is a member of the 2019 Board of Directors." has an awkwardly placed period with regards to citation.  Also, "a Portalnd-based nonprofit organization"  Portland is spelled wrong
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.  All major subjects appear covered.

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article feels more complete than it's current state. DanaGhouse added a great deal of content and expounded upon the article effectively and efficiently.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The volume of information has greatly increased.  The current article feels more like a stub, and this article feels much, much more complete.
 * How can the content added be improved? My main suggestion would be to double check grammar and punctuation. There are minor issues but nothing a little proofreading could not fix!