User:Maureensq19/Youth Poet Laureate/Tybrarian 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)
 * I'm reviewing Maureensq19's work on creating a National Youth Poet Laureate article.
 * 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?
 * Yes. This is an entirely new article and the Lead is entirely new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, though it could use slight revision. As it stands, the introductory sentence includes "a title held by a young person who demonstrates..." but that is ambiguous. Many young people are skilled in the literary arts, committed to social justice, and are active in advocacy. However, this is a specific honor bestowed annually on one specific young poet by a specific organization.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It alludes to the major sections but doesn't explicitly discuss them.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead discusses the duties of the Youth Poet Laureate as far as travel & advocacy, but it does not go into detail later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It goes into quite a bit of detail on the selection process & Laureate duties, which might be better broken down in their own sections later. A sentence on each would be ample for the Lead, along with a sentence on the sponsoring organization.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, as a new article it is all added content, and it covers the basics of the topic well.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes. The article notes this position is three years old, so it is quite timely and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, it is concise yet thorough.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * It is fairly neutral. As a new program, there do not appear to be major related to winners, the organization, or the selection process. However, the article at times reads like advertising copy for the title and program, for example describing the panelists: "an esteemed panel of judges who reflect and embody the power of verse." It's not biased per se, in the sense that a more controversial article like gun control might have biased content favoring a particular side of a nuanced issue, but it still isn't a purely factual description.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, this article is related to an honorary title and hews closely to presenting information about the title.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Some additional cites would be good to see. The duties of the Laureate need a cite, the three winners described in the Lead should have a cite, and the sponsoring organizations should be linked to the organization's Wikipedia page (if one exists).
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources represent the topic well and are reflective of the available literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, this is a new article on a new title and the sources are contemporary.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yep!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the organizational sections are clear and well-chosen. It may be worth titling the article "National Youth Poet Laureate" instead of "Youth Poet Laureate" for greater specificity.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, it was grammatically clear and free of spelling errors. The author/s may want to vary their sentence structure, as I found only one sentence in the article without a comma separating lists or clauses.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The Lead should go above the Contents table, in keeping with the aesthetic of other Wikipedia articles. As I mentioned above about the Lead section, it might be good to break out finalist selection and winner's duties into their own sections. Otherwise, the sections are sensibly divided.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the single image of the inaugural winner at a lectern enhances the concept of a passionate young person speaking in a professional capacity.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Consider rewording the caption to a single clause, like "Amanda Gorman performing at the Library of Congress". Her title of inaugural National Youth Poet Laureate is described elsewhere in the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the licensing and source are attributed to a government publication and clear.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, it is consistent with other Wikipedia articles.

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?
 * Yes, it is supported by several independent reliable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The sources are fairly exhaustive, covering governmental, literary, and trade publications.
 * 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?
 * The visual aesthetic and information structure is consistent with similar articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, although further internal linking is possible and would enhance the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, this was a new article and the topic is notable.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The added content addresses the history, organization, ceremony, selection, winner's duties, and finalists/ winners for the title. It covers the important points succinctly and effectively.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Varying the sentence structure and removing ornate descriptions, like rewording the description of the judges as "esteemed... embody[ing] the power of verse" in favor of simple description would improve this article.