User:Lramirez2003/Gloria Bird/JaPhiDiMi Peer Review

Lead

Lead: Introduces the work, who it is by, and why it is significant.

I did not find any information not present in the article that is mentioned in the Lead.

The Lead is concise.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic, nothing feels out of place or like it doesn't belong in this article.

The content is up to date.

The article does address the inequity in coverage for Indigenous and Native American topics and persons.

Tone

The tone is neutral, it does not pull the reader into one point of view or another, merely giving an objective view on the life and works of Bird.

Sources and References

Having 27 references to back up the claims and data introduced in the article, I was unable to find a point where the information wasn't supported by at least one reputable source.

The sources I checked are current and reliable.

My sole gripe is that many of the sources are Google Books, which are blocked behind a paywall. Verification of info posited in the article is difficult because of this reason, but it is a challenge found across the spectrum of internet information. That said, I feel the student editors for this article did their due diligence in making this work as comprehensive and unbiased as possible.

Organization

The sentence "Bird wrote and got her first poetry book published, Full Moon on the Reservation where she landed her first award as a writer in 1993, and in 1997 published her second book The River of History." read as clunky to me, however I cannot, without giving it considerable time in thought, think of how I would phrase it instead.

The grammar presented in this article is proper.

The breakdown of sections is well-done. I especially approve of the Awards, Poetry, Anthologies, and Interviews and autobiographical essays sections.

Images and Media

There aren't any pictures included in this article, which I do not personally mind. I can understand why some might want to see a picture included of say, Bird herself.

Overall

I am impressed by the amount of work that went into this article. I think the student editors involved went above what the project called for and gave extra effort because of a pride in the work done. I would trust these editors to do other works of this nature.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lramirez2003


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Gloria Bird


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)