User:NamakaOK/Effie Lee Morris/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? NamakaOK, who is reviewing the article on Effie Lee Morris (I can't see her/his name).
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:NamakaOK/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, more information has been added that cancels out the original lead's single sentence.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It is five sentences in length, compared to the original one.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but the contents box does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, its all in the article, too.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The second sentence is informative but could likely go under career. The note about lectures in her honor could fall under another section (honors/memorials). The first, third and fifth sentences could easily act as the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Just be sure to cite more (see below)

==== Content evaluation - Cleveland Public Library is linked twice, may only need one (the first one); the Master of Library Science is linked (from the original) but the Bachelor degrees are not, so I'd suggest linking all or none (if they exist); I don't recommend using the blog reference as stated in the Wiki trainings; your edits of 'African American' look right so if you see any with a hyphen 'African-American' be sure to remove the hyphen; I hope you can find a citation for her work with blind children, because that's great info; be sure to cite the info in the second paragraph under Career/Children's Librarianship; good idea about adding more detail to her literature educator work; the #9 citation says "anonymous" but its from the ALA website so be sure to change that authorship; under Leadership & Advocacy that picture would work well (the photo site may not be secure, just beware, but it has links to organizations she belonged to (?) or so it appears, at the bottom); the Langston Hughes Library website also not secure so be careful but I saw her name listed; good inclusion of her leadership work and just be sure to cite it all; Advocacy section looks good just cite the official awards/service/founding roles; under legacy, yes you're right remove all quotes possible and summarize in your words per the Wiki trainings (or just take it out altogether if its unneeded); if a page exists, link the official organizations to it; the SF public library link looks legitimate (remove or summarize quote); under all her "named --" maybe just list them as 'honorary work' or something else so its more succinct; oral history can go under the above honors or under legacy; under References, I'd update any anonymous authors as noted above; any luck with literary journals or books? Just to make it more official than all website posts/blogs (try avoiding blogs altogether). ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of it
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Literature beyond websites would be helpful to make it more official/scholarly.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

==== Sources and references evaluation - As stated above, add a variety of references that have clear authorship and secure links. For Coretta Scott King dissertation (under 'edits to the live reference section') add the handle listed on the main page its more official like a doi instead of this lengthy website; yes, careful with google books page so just put the publication info instead; good catching the broken link for the trailblazers award; yes omit the unnecessary/irrelevant; references 4 & 5 are the same (can be used multiple times), as are 8 & 12. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Only African American (no hyphen)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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 - The additional content adds richer information of Morris' life, career and accomplishments. She clearly achieved so much in her lifetime it deserved to be noted here, so well done. I want to believe there are official journal articles about her life/work so that would enhance and improve upon a resource list of only websites. I think the original contents sections were good because they were more succinct, so maybe: early life and education, career (don't need separate children's titles), leadership and advocacy, legacy, references. And the soon-to-be-added images will enhance this page as well. Good job, looking forward to the final product! ====