User:Kimannfran/Ann Allen Shockley/Angelacgeorge 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? Kimannfran
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kimannfran/Ann Allen Shockley

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? Yes but can be edited to be a little more fluid and concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the information about scrapbooks should probably be within another category.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A little overly detailed, see above.

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? Needs more information but no other than that

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? Yes for the most part
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but needs more
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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? Needs improvement in some areas. Needs to be in active voice in several of the sentences and there are some simple grammatical errors to be corrected.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes see above
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, perhaps can divide information into her personal life and writing career, if possible.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? Yes it is more complete, just needs more information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Added much more detailed information that helps the reader understand the author.
 * How can the content added be improved? By being reviewed and made more concise in some areas, as well as adding more information where needed.