User:Oskeans/Lucile Bluford/Man I love frogs Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Oskeans, Stephimsmith


 * Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Oskeans/Lucile Bluford


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lucile Bluford

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
This section is present in the sandbox, so I assume they are planning to edit this in some way. I don't see any differences between the sandbox section and that of the official article. Right now the lead is only one sentence, so there is room to add more details and outline the sections included in the article.

Early Life
Again, there are no visible differences between this section in the sandbox and the official article, but it is present in the sandbox so I assume they are planning to edit this in some way.

Career
I see there's been a lot of work done on this section. Within the sandbox, they have added a citation to a previously unsupported claim in the article. I also see there have been several sentences added detailing Lucile Bluford's connection to the University of Missouri. There are citations to support these claims, so that's great!


 * The last of the added content is concise, but it feels a bit disjointed from the rest of the article; referencing the sentence "Bluford never attended the University of Missouri". I think this is an easy fix though--maybe by adding context as to why Bluford never attended the University of Missouri (MU shutting down it's graduate journalism program) from the second source you added. Just a little bit more information would probably help it flow nicer with the rest of the information.

Images and Media
If there is an image available that doesn't violate copyright violations, I think including a picture of Lucile Bluford in the article would be a great addition.

Peer Review Checklist Comments

 * Article content (both in the sandbox and in the official article) was relevant to the article topic and appears neutral.
 * Most of the article sources are accessible, but the links for references 2 and 5 from the State Historical Society of Missouri lead to empty pages with "page not found" errors.
 * It looks like there are quite a few claims that need to be supported with references throughout the article. Based on sandbox edits, it looks like this process has already been started.

Overall Impressions
There's been some great progress made in editing the article. I don't see any edits that would violate Wikipedia's guidelines.