User:Hagowgirl/Andrea Davis Pinkney/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)
 * 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?
 * The lead has been updated, the user added the birth date of Pinkney.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence gives a brief description of who Pinkney is and what she does.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the lead discusses that Pinkney is the founder of the "first African American children's book imprint at a major publishing company, but this isn't described in further detail anywhere else.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel that the lead is overly detailed. The lead mentions that Pinkney is an award-winning author, which is fine, but then goes on to note which awards she has won, which could be placed in the later section on awards and honors.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead could really be improved by editing it down a bit. I would cut the second two paragraphs and leave them for the awards and biography sections, respectively, as well as getting rid of the bit about her founding the new imprint if it isn't going to be mentioned anywhere in the article. In the intro sentence it also looks like you added "is an award-winning author, editor" but immediately afterwords it says "and is a New York Times bestselling and award-winning author" plus, further in the lead it mentions that Pinkney is a publisher and editor. The first bit at the beginning of the sentence seems redundant when the same things are mentioned within the first paragraph.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is relevant to Pinkney.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, the content that is there seems like it all fits into the article.

Content evaluation
I wish that there had been more content added within the article. Looking at the sandbox and the published article side by side I only noticed a few spots where content was added, and it was really more of an update than adding new information. I do like that you added it was Mechanix that Andrea met Brian, since the previous article doesn't specify where they meet.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content that has been added is neutral.
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is fine, the pieces that were added are strictly facts, no bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all content is backed up by reliable sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, all sources reflect Pinkney.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The reference you added isn't actually shown anywhere in the article. Make sure you're citing your sources within the article as well as adding them to the references page.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content that is added is concise and well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content is well organized.

Organization evaluation
It doesn't look like you did anything to change the organization in the article, which is fine because the organization works pretty well as is.

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?