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

Lead evaluation
The revised Lead offers a more concise and relevant introduction to The Snowy Day than the original Lead. It emphasizes the book's significance, as well as a basic plot synopsis and its award-winning status. The Lead's first sentence clearly defines the subject, and succinctly locates the book in the children's literature canon. The Lead goes on to pull in details about the plot, author information, the book's history, impact, and its award-winning status. The only section that is missing a mention is the adaptations section, but I did not feel as if I was missing any important details.

Structure evaluation
The content is mostly well-written. There are a few instances of grammatical problems. The word "white" in the Lead sentence doesn't need to be capitalized. While technically not incorrect, I would suggest the use of the Oxford comma in several instances for clarity's sake. You also hyphenate "African American" in the History section, but do not do so throughout the rest of the article. Then, in the second paragraph of the impact section, there are several instances where there are missing commas between clauses. Finally, "1980's" should not have an apostrophe in the Impact section.

The article in general, though, is clear and easy to read. When comparing the revised article with the original, I see that a lot of extraneous detail was removed. This helps with the brevity and exact nature of the revised article. The content also focuses more on the book itself, instead of the author like the original article. This change has made the entire article more relevant.

The order of the sections makes sense: Plot > About the Author > History of the Book > Impact > Adaptations > Honors and Memorials.

Balanced coverage evaluation
The content is all relevant and up-to-date. Irrelevant information has been removed from original article. The lengths of the various article components seem reasonable for their contents. The Impact section addresses various controversies that were lobbied against The Snowy Day, while also outlining the reactions of the author and closely affiliated people in response. It might be good to include specific reactions from those who who were not personally affiliated with the author. But, in general, the coverage of the impact--from its initial response to its later controversy, and its more contemporary acceptance are all alluded to. I did not notice a particular bias in the revised article.

Neutral content evaluation
The contents of this article seem neutral and well balanced. There are clear delineations of various reactions to the book, with no obvious bias. There are no unfounded claims that I could find, nor where there any broad generalizations. The closest I noticed was the descriptor "universal" in conjunction to a child's experience of their first snowfall. Snow is not a universal experience.

Reliable sources evaluation
The source list for this article is impressive. There is a good mix of literary criticism books, journal articles, and mainstream magazine and newspaper articles. They range in publication date from the 1960s through the 2010s. All of the links I tried worked and took me to useful websites. I didn't encounter any paywalls or broken links. There was balanced focus across secondary source throughout the article. A few were cited multiple times, but none more than four, and those were intermixed with other sources in the text of the article. In that vein, every statement was sourced.

Overall impressions
I am impressed with the edits made on this article. It is clearly more concise and relevant than the original. While the original was filled with quotations, this revision has no direct quotations. The original also focused heavily on the author, while the edited version brings the focus back to the book itself, its artistic style, and its significance in children's literature. There are a few instances of awkward sentences and minor grammatical errors, but those are easily corrected. I pointed out what I noticed in the Structure section of my evaluation. It would be good to incorporate the cover of the book and its metadata into the article, but I know that I was having trouble to get images to stick around when working my Sandbox instance, so I'm not begrudging their absence from this draft.