User:Mimabe06/The Snowy Day/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?
 * Mimabe06, Kjosowski, Tstanek06
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * The Snowy Day

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 lead has definitely been updated. The new content is bolded and easy to identity. It gives the basic pertinent information regarding the book including the author, a one sentence summary, and the historical importance of being the first Caldecott featuring an African American protagonist.  The contents are well laid out, although there is no description of what the rest of the article will contain.  However, all of the facts mentioned in the lead are touched on again in the main article in further detail.  Overall, the lead is concisely written and serves it's purpose of a brief overview of the whole 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 plot is succinct, but I do think some more could be added do it. More discussion of who Peter is would be helpful. It's mentioned in the lead he is the protagonist, but I think that would be worth restating here. All of the content does seem to be relevant although I do wish there was some connection between "Keat's experience living in tenement housing...can be seen in his books" and "non of Keat's more than 30 illustration jobs featured Black children prior to The Snow Day". If his experiences in a multicultural tenement house influenced his art, why isn't it in his earlier works as well?  I can guess the reason being he was working for others and illustrating their stories not his own, but I would love to know if that is true and have a resource explaining those two things.  They feel a little disconnected at this point.   The content does all seem to be up to date with references to adaptations of the work at late as 2017.  I'm unaware of any content that seems to be missing. If I had to pick one thing, I would suggest including how the issue of Keats and the race of Peter is viewed today. The article touches on the controversy that surrounded this topic in the 60s/70s, but I wonder if that has changed or progressed in today's world. It seems to me that overall most people view this work positively, but I would be interested if that is true.

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

 * I think the tone and balance of this piece was one of it's strongest points. As I read and reread through this article, I didn't find anything that seemed to be bias or one-sided. It included positive and negative viewpoints of the book and provided sources to back up different viewpoints so it was clearly not just the article's authors.  At no point does the writing seem to attempt to sway the readers towards either liking or disliking the book. The adaptations and honors and memorials as well as the plot were very factual and did not include anything that felt one-sided.

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 of the links I clicked on worked and they seemed to cover a variety of source types. There were museums articles, journal articles, news articles, and professional books all represented. The sources also vary in date published, from the 1960s through the later 2010s. It seems to me they reflect the sources available on this author and book.  While there are probably many more sources, these seems to all be vetted reliable sources.

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

 * There are parts of the article that seem a little choppy and disconnected, but it's understandable when trying to include just facts and stay away from any opinions and also backing up everything with reliable sources. However, no part of the article was unclear or confusing. It was easy to follow, and I did not catch any grammar or spelling areas. The various sections also make sense and do a solid job of reflecting important aspects connected to this book.

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

 * There are no images with this article. On one hand I understand this, because of the strict copyright regulations, but it would be nice if there was one picture at least.

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 additions to this article vastly improved the article written. For such a momentous book I'm shocked at how little there was initially (going by what is bolded and not bolded). The strengths of this article are definitely it's sources and unbiased tone. I feel like the sources are all very solid and trustworthy and there is no agenda with the writing of the article.  My only real suggestions for improvement would be on organization and flow. Certain parts can be choppy or feel disconnected from one sentence to the next.  I would say the about the author section is where I noticed it the most.