User:LibraryKat95/Ibi Zoboi/EmilyParrish 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? LibraryKat95, Gruzsa , Mgrone
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gruzsa/598 Sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, there is no lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * 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? It includes no information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There is no lead.

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? If information is available, could add birth date, current city, list of works, list of awards, side "infobox" panel

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 over-represented, 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? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The publishers weekly citation link is broken.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There are some run-on sentences. Three paragraphs in a row under "Selected Works" begin with "Zoboi" - this structure could be varied.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Young Adult's "Literarature" is misspelled.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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?

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? Some information is added, however, additional information from the current published version of the article is not present. It would be nice to see the new and old elements together.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They support the themes in her books. The first addition adds context to Zoboi's focus on immigration in her work.
 * How can the content added be improved? The last two works mentioned under "Selected Works" also tie into the stated themes she focuses on (experiences of moving/living in different places, life in Bushwick).This could be narratively tied in more seamlessly.

==== Overall evaluation - The additions are valuable, but could be better worked into the article rather than tacked on. I would like to see the additions alongside the elements of the previous version of the article which are missing. ====