User:Mimabe06/The Snowy Day/Mgrone 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) Mimabe06
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mimabe06/The Snowy Day

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the Lead has been updated to include clearer overview of the work.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the Lead has a brief summary of the book and its importance, as well as brief information about the book.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the Lead is reflective of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information in the Lead is included in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all content added is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all content is relevant and is comprehensive to the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the tone in the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the authors do a good job explaining without bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, multiple points of view are expressed without bias.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there is no attempt to persuade a reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the new content is all backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough and varied, including books, magazines, and websites.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links I tried worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is concise but cohesive.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see 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? The content is well organized and fairly easy to find.

==== Organization evaluation: This article was well organized and well written. The only thing I wondered was if the "About the Author" section should have been moved to the bottom or the very top. The flow was disrupted by it being in the middle of the article. ====

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images were included in this article.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/a

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? The article is much stronger now, and there is more background information about the book to make it easier to understand.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I appreciated the added section of the history of the book. The background information is varied and strong.
 * How can the content added be improved? Changing the order of the sections could make the article flow better.

==== Overall evaluation: The edits and added information give a much more comprehensive look at both this work and the author's purpose. I appreciated the neutral tone and explanation of why this book was important. The only suggestion I would make is to change the order of the sections around to make the flow of the article easier to read- it's a little jumpy now. Great job! ====