User:ElleWidogast/Ashley Bryan/Darbyjoan94 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): ElleWidogast
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: This user does not seem to have created a Sandbox draft for this article, I was unable to find any draft even after searching for quite some time and using all the recommended ways to find it. So I will be basing this review off of changes made to the existing article that are listed in the user's contributions section.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes, but I would say that the wording of "Most of his subjects are from the African American experience" feels out of place and could use rewording.
 * 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?: No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: Very concise lead that could just use a little cleaning up.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes, the content gives a concise description of Ashley Bryan's early life that provides context to his work as an author. The lists of his works and awards and honors received is easy to understand and skim quickly.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: No, the current content only goes up to 2017, but Ashley Bryan has published new works as recently as this year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: The section on Bryan's retirement, while sweet, could probably be absorbed into the section about his career as a professor. Ashley Bryan has retired from Dartmouth, but he has not retired from writing as a whole.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?: Yes
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: The current article has a solid amount of sources attached to it, there do not seem to be any facts presented without sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: Yes, there are a wide variety of sources used.
 * Are the sources current?: Yes, the most recent source used was published in February 2019. It could stand to have a few more recent sources, but it is good that there are current sources used.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: Yes, it is written clearly and is easy to quickly read through and absorb the information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: None that I could find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: Yes, it moves in chronological order, then addresses his written works by notoriety, starting with his books and moving onto stage performances and filmography.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: Just a single image of the author that was taken in 2007. It may be nice to get a more recent photo if one is available.
 * Are images well-captioned?: Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?: Yes, the photo came from Creative Commons.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?: Yes

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?: This article feels very concise and well-written, but I feel that it could be longer and more detailed as Ashley Bryan is 96 years old with a long career. There is certainly more information that could be added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?: So far the only contributions made to the article are changes in headings which certainly do make the article easy to navigate and understand.
 * How can the content added be improved?: No new content about Ashley Bryan himself seems to have been added, so improving upon that.