User:Hagowgirl/Andrea Davis Pinkney/EmilyParrish 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? Hagowgirl
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hagowgirl/sandbox

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? It covers the topic, but is very long and contains redundancies.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It contains relevant material, but is not brief and contains sentences that are repeated later in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, her editing career is not fully reflected later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It could be made more concise by shifting some of the content to subsections of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some of the information (like birthdate, birthplace, current town, select works and awards) could be organized into a side "infobox" panel.

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 over-represented, 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? No, there is no new citation on her work at Mechanix.
 * 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? The last citation (penguin/random house) is formatted differently than the rest. The formatting of the Additional Reference section could be improved. There is an orphaned citation directly under Selected Bibliography.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The additions to the first section are repeated later in the same sentence. The other additions are minimal and unobtrusive.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The first sentence contains a redundancy, as noted.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article could benefit from a division between personal/early life and career.

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? Most of the additions neither benefit nor detract from the article as they are repeated elsewhere within the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The clarification that Mechanix was where Pinkney met her husband is the only addition that was not in the previously published version of the article - this is beneficial.
 * How can the content added be improved? The lead section could be made more concise by moving some of the information to a side "infobox" panel. This would also decrease redundant sentences.