User:Monte141/Sharon Draper/Mimabe06 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? Monte141 (don't see peer's name)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Monte141/sandbox for Sharon Mills Draper

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 - It looks as if minor editing was done in the Lead, just a rewording of the second sentence. It is pretty long, for example the explanation of the award can be saved for a different section. Her books are listed later on so probably don't need to be here, too, to tighten it up/make it less wordy. There is information about the following sections, but maybe too much (overly detailed). Be sure to cite, too. ====

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 - Under Personal life: good catch on finding a cut/paste from the author's personal website and rewording it all; needs additional information, looks a bit short for such a lifetime of work; if links are for one college maybe link the other one also (if there is a page for it); under Awards and Honors: it is noted by Monte141 that this section is incomplete (not edited/cited), so I am unable to effectively evaluate it (otherwise I'd be reviewing the original author's article, sorry); under Works, the series are listed with ISBN numbers and 'S&S' but these all will likely (?) be cited for the reference section; Themes is a new section added that shares information about each book which could be condensed into a paragraph describing the real life themes her characters experience. Each book is listed and described, just as each one is listed above it in the unedited section (discussing awards) -- or maybe they can be blended together? Be sure to cite and beware of grammar. Also needing additional references, only five are providing all this information. ====

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 - The parts I can see were edited seem to have good tone. Viewpoints are questionnable - the newest section reads somewhat like a book review section which deters or encourages a person to read the books. Because this page is about Draper, I would encourage the article to really focus on her life and achievements while listing her works by title/year, but adding a section (similar to themes) that shows she's willing to write about delicate subject matter to diverse audiences -- or maybe include this in her personal life section, i.e. where her inspiration for writing about difficult themes came from. ====

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?

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 - The section headings are the originals except Themes, where grammar could be double-checked. The organization could be improved because the author's works are listed multiple times instead of in just one section. Personal life could be elaborated, also. ====

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?

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 - It was difficult to evaluate because much of it wasn't completed, so it still needs a lot of work. The original article, (mostly copied into this sandbox) also has more references and includes external links. I recommend looking into journal/scholarly articles on her work and avoiding personal websites (as already noted) and blogs. Maybe elaborate on her personal life too. She sounds like an amazing author who is well-deserved of her awards. ====