User:Jobananas/Désirée's Baby/Tprice98115 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jobananas


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jobananas/D%C3%A9sir%C3%A9e%27s_Baby&veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&redirect=no
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Désirée's Baby

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, everything appears relevant. What distracted me was the first line of the second paragraph, "If the story is read from the beginning with the reader assuming that Armand has knowledge of his racial heritage...."  I thought the "punchline" of the story was that Armand did not know he was part black.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article does appear neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Like mentioned above, I thought the story was about how Armand did not know his heritage until after the baby was born. Paragraph 2 is written from the viewpoint of his knowing his heritage earlier.  Perhaps there should be something about his anger on self-discovery after the baby is born.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, the links work. The first source is a collection of essays about Kate Chopin.  Do the citations have to be more specific to the essay in the book?
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * There is a lot of information about Louisiana, pre- and post-war, in the third paragraph that is linked just to one source. Is there any other source to corroborate?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No--everything seems up to date.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * There is a lot of information about Louisiana, pre- and post-war, in the third paragraph that is linked just to one source. Is there any other source to corroborate?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No--everything seems up to date.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No--everything seems up to date.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No--everything seems up to date.