User:Maureensq19/Youth Poet Laureate/Maggie.htj 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)
 * Maureensq19 and AdyAsc
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Maureensq19/Youth Poet Laureate

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
I can't tell if the section entitled "National Youth Poet Laureate" is the Lead for this article. If it is not meant to be the Lead, then it appears the article lacks a Lead so far. If it is meant to be the Lead, it provides a fairly detailed overview of the award. The section is clear and descriptive, well-written, and includes an introductory sentence that provides a brief but comprehensive description of the award. The Lead does not include a description of the article's major sections. Overall I would say that the section entitled "National Youth Poet Laureate" could be split to create a Lead and an overview section. This could appropriately be done by making the first short paragraph the Lead and the following content the first major section of the article.

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
The content of the article is all relevant to the topic, up-to-date, and clear. The article provides a comprehensive but concise treatment of the topic. The only content I think the writers of this article should think about removing is the sentence at the end of the first section where they list the three award winners so far. This information will become out-of-date and need updating eventually as new young people are presented with the award each year. Also, the information is mostly included in the table that lists the award winners and finalists later in the article.

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
The content of the article is neutral and none of the statements seem biased or attempt to persuade the reader. The article does not contain viewpoints that are over- or underrepresented.

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
The content seems to all be backed up by reliable sources but there are a few sentences in which new information is presented without a clear link to the source of information. It seems like this information derives from one of the previously linked sources but the statements themselves lack a clear citation. The sources included seem current and thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. The links work.

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 of this article is very clear and helpful. No section contains information outside its scope and the article itself provides a good overview of the topic. Overall, the content is well-written and clear. I noticed only one sentence that seemed confusing to me, the first sentence in the section entitled "Ceremony."

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 article includes one image of the inaugural Youth Poet Laureate performing on stage at the Library of Congress. The image is appealing, showing Amanda Gorman under spotlight on a stage in front of an audience. She appears focused on her performance and the few audience members visible in the photo are focused on her and smiling. This image is in the public domain so adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. It is also well-captioned.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article is supported by several reliable secondary sources including the Library of Congress, Poets and Writers Magazine, and the Poetry Foundation. The article is broken down into more sections than the article for the United States Poet Laureate and uses an infobox to list the award winners and finalists rather than listing them in bullet points. I think the organization serves the article well, although I believe the infobox might be more clear if broken down by winners and finalists. The article does link to some other articles but could probably link to more, such as the articles on Jacqueline Woodson and National Ambassador for Young People's Literature.

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 this is a strong article. The writing is clear, the information is well organized and neutral, and the article provides a comprehensive overview of the topic. A clearer Lead section, more citations to link information with sources, and more links to other articles would make this an even stronger article.