User:Jazharmon/Anna Blackburne-Rigsby/DylanElder 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? Jazharmon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Xwb3Nj3JtILmTDaVKHDJas3hufIUL_SvfbPMBl1rgM/edit?ts=5f282af7

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead still needs to be edited to reflect the changes that Jaz made to the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content of this draft looks very relevant and up to date. I think you did a great job adjusting the structure from the current Wikipedia article, specifically by separating the "Early Life" and "Career" sections. To my knowledge, nothing is missing or out of date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
This is a mostly balanced article. However, this sentence could use some clarification: "Eventually, Anna Blackburne-Rigsby and her mother will each work together in the court, fulfilling a very rare mother-daughter combination." I do not doubt that Anna working with her mother in court is very rare, but the sentenced would be improved by citing a source that discusses how rare this occurrence is.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
Jaz still needs to add sources to the content she added to her draft.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think the organizational changes that Jaz made vastly improve this article. I found one minor spelling error in this sentence: "President George W. Bush prompted her to the position of Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals in August of 2006, and her latest position of Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals was assigned to her in March of 2017." I think it should be: George W. Bush "promoted" her, not prompted her. In addition, removing passive voice would improve this sentence, and I think the best way to do that is separating it into two sentences because it discusses two notable events. It would also be helpful to know who assigned her to her current position of Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. Something like: "President George W. Bush promoted her to the position of Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals in August of 2006. In March of 2017, X assigned Blackburne-Rigsby to her current position of Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images/media in this draft.

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think Jaz does a great job adding relevant content to this article and providing a clearer structure that is easy to follow. The three ways to improve the content would be to 1) Add sources for the new content, 2) Correct some minor spelling/passive voice issues, and 3) Add a summarization of the new content added to the "Lead Section."