User:Niortega/Jerry Pinkney/Monte141 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)
 * Niortega
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Niortega/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Not to reflect new content, but it was edited to read easier.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, within the first sentence I learn that Pinkney is an American author and illustrator of children's books, which the article focuses on.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, but it does describe the many awards Pinkney has earned.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Hans Christian Andersen award is discussed in the Lead, but does not appear in the Awards section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is long, but to me it makes sense. I could see the argument that there are too many awards listed, but I also think highlighting each major award gives a sense of how accomplished Pinkney is.

Lead evaluation
I think this Lead provides a good introduction to Pinkney and his achievements. My only note would be that there are a lot of awards, yet only one of his works is listed (The Lion & The Mouse). Also, it may be worth considering labeling Pinkney as an African American author, as he works a lot on books about African Americans and there is a quote about him wanting to be an example to African American children.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, particularly in the Literary Works I like that it is highlighted if he illustrated or provided pictures. I think adding the Awards and Exhibitions sections will also be very helpful in emphasizing Pinkney's successes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Because he is an illustrator, I would love to see some images of his works somewhere on the page, maybe in the Literary Works area. This would break up the long lists of text.

Content evaluation
This draft has greatly improved the content on the current, live page. The additions are helpful, and the new organization makes much more sense. My only notes on the content are: there are a lot of quotes in the Biography section, which Wikipedia discourages in the trainings; and, looking at other authors' bibliographies, I'm not sure if each book in Literary Works would need its own citation. However, I'm not confident on that, and better safe than sorry (I just wanted to point it out)!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Content is neutral.
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral in tone and does not ignore viewpoints or try to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes! Content is thoroughly referenced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The majority of citations are for Pinkney's literary works. The other references are a variety of articles and websites, all which correspond to the information they are referencing.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, there are sources from the 1990s to 2019.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I did not encounter any issues when testing the links.

Sources and references evaluation
The article is thoroughly referenced. Each new bit of information can be backed up by a second source.

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?
 * No errors spotted.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. I appreciated the combining of the Literary Works and the smaller breakdown of sections. It makes finding all of his work much faster. I also thought the reorganization of Stamps to the bottom, then adding the Exhibitions and Awards had an intuitive flow.

Organization evaluation
The article is organized logically. The new breakdown allows for works to be quickly and easily located.

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?
 * With the new content, the article is much more complete. Moreover, the content is also much more reliable.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Everything is verified with a citation, the tone is neutral, and the article gives a good overview of Pinkney's work and achievements. Another strength is that a lot of the paragraphs have been rewritten, improving the article and better adhering to Wikipedia's policy against plagiarism.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I mentioned before, but it would be nice to see some of his illustrations throughout the article, maybe just a drawing or two.

Overall evaluation
The article has been greatly improved. The myriad of references show that information is reliable. The information is much more complete now, with a logical organization.