User:Elid 389/Elizabeth Watasin/Empiretr00per Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Elid 389


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elid_389/Elizabeth_Watasin&oldid=1118187447
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * (N/A)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead does have content that is up to date about the person.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead does accurately state who Elizabeth Watasin is and what she is known for.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead mainly contains content about notable works and involvements of Watasin, which does take up the majority of the article, but does not mention her Early Life or Personal Life which are sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does include information about several jobs in animation which she had but they are not completely mentioned in the career portion of the article. Working at Walt Disney was mentioned however.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is extremely concise and includes necessary details and only leaves out some content which is not yet included in the article overall.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is all relevant to Elizabeth Watasin.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content does seem up to date and includes what Watasin is currently doing in her career.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Content about several animation studios she worked with is present in her lead but not mentioned in the actual careers portion. If information cannot be found about her work in these studios they should be removed from the lead and her involvement in other notable works should take its place.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, that being that she is a lesbian. This information does appear in the career portion of the article but not in the lead, early life, or personal life sectoin.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No claims appear biased towards any position for or against Watasin.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoint is overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The content does appear to be backed up from reliable secondary sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * While the article does not have any direct in text citations yet, the information does seem to reflect what is present in the sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources do seem to be thorough and cover a variety of topics related to Elizabeth Watasin.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources do have a diverse cast of authors and they also include various LGBTQ+ sources as well.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Various sources are interviews of Elizabeth Watasin and published articles about her. Because of this, the sources are reliable to the person the article is about.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * While nothing is hyperlinked, after copying and pasting links they do appear to work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well written, both in conciseness and ease of reading.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content does not appear to have grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized but it might be beneficial to include subheadings for the Career section of the article.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * The article does meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and has more than 3 reliable, secondary sources about Elizabeth Watasin.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The sources do seem to accurately represent available literature about Elizabeth Watasin.
 * 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?
 * The article does not contain an infobox or in text citations but it does contain section headings.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * The article does not, at this point, link to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added did improve the quality of the article, considering that it is a completely new article, but there are still sections, like her personal life and her career in animation that need more fleshing out.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content's main strength is having a lot of information about Watasin's career in comics which is extremely important since it is a large part of her career.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Content can be improved by expanding the lead to include information of notable comics she has worked on, as is shown in the careers section, the addition of information to the personal life section, and the addition of an infobox to present quick, easy access to important information.

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)