User:Monte141/Sharon Draper/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) Monte141
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Monte141/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes- new entry is in bold.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, lead is a brief biography of Draper.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There are many details within the lead, including a lot of her major works.

==== Lead evaluation: The lead is a good and thorough introduction to Draper. I wonder if some of the detailed information about awards that she's won could be moved down to the "Awards and Honors" section. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all content is about Draper and her works.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, though the latest date in the reference section is 2008.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all content is valuable and adds to knowledge of Draper.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is all biographical.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, every claim supports either why Draper has won a specific award or gives more information about her life and why she wrote books.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, everything is explanatory.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, all added information is neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The "Themes" section doesn't have any sources listed. Other than that, everything is backed up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Yes, though the latest source was 2009
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all links I tested work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, all content is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is broken down into manageable sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * 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? Yes, the article is more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is better balanced and avoids copying and pasting straight from a webpage.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some sections could be more concise- for example, you don't need to list every award she's ever won.