User:Maggie.htj/Angela Johnson (writer)/LibraryKat95 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): Maggie.htj
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Maggie.htj/Angela Johnson (writer)

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
The added information to the lead gives strong background information about Angela Johnson, time time she lives, and the career she pursued. A lot of value might be added to additions being made to the lead if sources were cited for some of the information including her date of birth and a citation linking to her 40 works referenced in the lead. In the sandbox article I noticed an entire major section might be added so more details should be added to the lead providing a brief description of each section users might read through in this article. Some of the information about Angela's life including when she is born is only included in the lead but should also be included in the biographical section of the article as that information is relevant and somewhat necessary when listing biographical details. The only changes maded by the user to the lead so far appear to be the name of the article's title sake unless that was already bold. While continuing with the assignment consider doing some research to provide some citations within the lead.

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
As said above be sure to include some of the information listed in the lead in your edits of the Biography section to create more fluidity and connections through the article. You included several useful citations within the Biography section which make it much more reliable than it was before if you do so within the added 'Writings' section the article will be further improved.

I was extremely excited to see the addition of a 'Writings' section which may benefit further by including or connecting the bulleted an list of works known to be completed by the writer and by citing at least a few of the works in the list so as to make it easier to find further resources related to all of the items written by Johnson.

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
Some citations included reference interviews with the author which provide interesting information however they may be biased as the author is likely to only share information what would keep them in positive standing with their audience. Other additions to the article as written well and maintain clear statements devoid or any terms that hint at an opinion on the author, their life, or their work.

The most important change to consider when moving forward is to reevaluate certain citations that were added. I confirmed with Dr. Martin that Goodreads author pages which may be edited by the author themselves may not be considered reliable sources and can often be biased, this thought process may want to be considered when referencing interview statements as well.

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
All reference links I checked worked however some linked to interviews which may or may not be biased resources to reference, more research should be done to confirm whether or not these resources should be considered reliable. It would be interesting to see if any research on references related to the section on Dav Pilkey could lead to any reliable sources to cite but currently no edits have been made this that section at this time so it is understandable if there is limited opportunity to look into this.

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 content is very concise and to the point though some biographical details should be added from the lead section to the biographical section to improve flow and organization. The list of works might also be included in the newly added 'writings' section or included as its own section direction after 'Writings' to maintain flow as well.

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
So far no images are in the article. Consider adding and citing an image of the writer, and some pictures of her works. If she wrote picture books readers would likely expect to see some pictures. Adding cited images from some of Johnson's works would add some vibrancy and interest to her page. A image of the author would also add to the credibility of the page especially since we are focusing on editing and evaluating articles on African-American literature and it is important to give these authors the attention and limelight that has often not been given to them in the past due to prejudice.

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
The work done so far has been great but it would be awesome to see more work done on highlighting the author AND her work, some images would really help add some appeal and credibility to the article and some sections should be researched further to improve balance and depth. While this user did not begin the Dav Pilkey section they should consider doing some research on that section to either expand it or find a way to incorporate it into a different section to improve the overall balance of the sections. Take care to ensure that details included in the lead might be found in appropriate sections as well to maintain organization and flow. Summarize the sections that can be found in the article in the lead as well so it is clear why each section is present, especially the ones newly added by you.