User:Kutekenzz/Shannon Hale/CStickel8 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) Kutekenzz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Shannon Hale

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It didn't have to be; the changes made were copyediting.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * 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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise; it is two sentences. It could be expanded to include a sentence from each section. It has a citation after her maiden name, but no citation after the first or second sentence, so a source needs to be added or the first citation just needs to be moved to the end, if it covers all of that information.

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? No

Content evaluation
The changes made corrected grammatical errors, which often clarify things and greatly enhance the article. Edits like this should not be overlooked. I think that the personal life section should be expanded if there is enough information out there, and if not, it should be absorbed into "early life" and renamed "personal life."

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

Tone and balance evaluation
This is a very neutrally written article about the author. There are no opinions expressed or unbalanced points of view.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe so
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat. There are probably some newer sources out there on her, though I think she hasn't published a book in a number of years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are mostly journalistic, which is good. I see that the author's personal website is used, which is fine because she is a living person and the subject of the article. She has written a detailed biography online which I think should be pulled from to expand the personal life section on the page.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed - looks like Kutekenzz corrected them.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Like I said before, I think personal life needs to be added to - and after looking at the sources, I see that it can. Career can probably also be expanded, and her works section I would put into two columns to make it look better.

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
No images or media were added. I would like to see a picture of just her in her infobox instead of her and her husband. See if Women in Red has any guidelines on this.

Extra

 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I believe so.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
There are a fair number of Wikilinks, especially for the article length, so bravo. It's organized much like the author's pages I've seen and written (ex: Dan Wells (author)) so no major organizational changes need to be done.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Grammatical errors corrected!!
 * How can the content added be improved? See below.

Overall evaluation
I'll just use this as a summary: I think this is a great article. It's been around a long time and has a fair amount of editors who probably have this page on their watchlist, so be proud that your contributions didn't get reverted! Living people are the hardest to write Wikipedia pages about, so you should be proud of yourself for undergoing this challenge. I gave some pointers for future edits on how this page could be improved - most of it involves updating and lengthening. Don't be afraid to draw everything from a source that you can if it's all you can find, so long as it's a good source. Also, know that sometimes, small edits like these are all that is needed. Overall, good job!