User:LaineNichols/Short story collection/RoseHarris2020 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)
 * LaineNichols
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:LaineNichols/Short story collection

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Minimally
 * 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, I am sure Laine will include that once the article is complete
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, only missing the mention of the later sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Absolutely, and it is greatly informative.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, it reflects historically notable collections as well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Only the lead section

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the language is graded neutrally
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it is a relatively easy article to reflect neutrality.
 * 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
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * The ones from 1994 are questionable, but should be fine for a topic that is so well researched.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the few that I checked worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the information added greatly explicates on the topic
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I can see, but if they are there they can be fixed in final edits.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections are well placed.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. The image is applicable, and well placed on the page.

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?
 * The article is completely different, and for the better
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It completes the article, adding substantial information and evidence.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I am sure it can, but Laine seems up for the challenge if it does.

Overall evaluation
The information added to this stub is amazing. It is very well done and explanatory. It adds so much to the article. Great job!!!!