User:LibraryKat95/Ibi Zoboi/Jgrant89 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)
 * LibraryKat95, Gruzsa, Mgrone
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Ibi Zoboi

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
This sandbox version of the article doesn't have a lead, so no added content by my peers. There is a contents list with four different sections, but there is no indication at the beginning on who Ibi Zoboi is or what she is famous for. However, when I go to the currently published article's page, there is a lead, so perhaps they thought the lead was good as it was and didn't need anything added? The lead on the published page does have a brief intro into who she is and why she has her own Wikipedia page.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

 * Most of the added content does seem to be relevant. the additions to the career section are great and flesh out what else she has done besides writing. There is also a good sentence added to her selected works about her most recent book.  The piece about her personal life being stuck in Haiti for three months after a visit is interesting, but I'm not sure how important it is as there is only one sentence about it.  I wanted more on if it affected her writing or her life.  The source that the fact comes from seems to have a lot more and explains how that experience affected her writing and influenced her novel American Street.  I would also say that there is not a lot of content that has been added. I'm not sure if that is because she is a newer author and it's harder to find reliable sources about her or not.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * There isn't a lot of content that was added, but what was added seemed to stick to the facts and be objective and verifiable rather than subjective. I wish there was more to base my opinion on, but what is there seems solid.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * There are fifteen different sources and all the ones I clicked on had working links. The sources were all current as well although I felt like an overwhelming amount of them focused primarily on her American Street novel.  I know from my own article that sometimes this is just due to the fact that there is a lack of reliable sources that deal with anything else.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

 * The organization is solid. It follows a logical progression. I did see one error in the selected works section. It says . "all based on the author's on experiences" and I'm guessing it should be 'own experiences'.  This was in a section that was written not by my peers, but should be corrected.  Overall, it is easy to read and follow along.

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

 * The actual article does have a picture of Zoboi, but no new pictures have been added. The picture's caption is 'Ibi Zoboi receives a 2018 Americas Award from the Library of Congress' which is crazy to me as that is not mentioned in the article anywhere. That definitely seems like it warrants further information and explanation of what she won the award for. It is a good picture though and from what I can tell follows the Wikipedia guidelines.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

 * Overall, I think a lot more could be added to this article. I understand that may be difficult if there are a lack of reputable sources for a newer author, but there are lots of gaps. Her education, early life, and career could be added to in order to strengthen the article. I do think the authors did a good job of keeping the piece unbiased.