User:ParkerHeustess/Milton Meltzer/NamakaOK 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) ParkerHeustess
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ParkerHeustess/Milton Meltzer

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Could be improved
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation

 * The original article has some grammatical errors that make it unclear in parts. You have certainly improved this in the parts that you have added or changed, but you might be able to do more, beginning with the lead. For instance, in the first sentence "history" or "historian" is mentioned three times. Try something like: "Milton Meltzer (May 8, 1915 – September 19, 2009) was an American historian and author best known for his history nonfiction books on Jewish, African-American, and American history. " Perhaps you could also clarify the meaning of the original article's phrase "a leading author": prolific, best-selling, well-known (etc)?
 * You could consider adding a note about Meltzer's human rights advocacy and being a self-taught historian, both of which seem significant to me.

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? None

Content evaluation
'''Your additions improve upon the original article. I liked learning more Meltzer's education, especially how he was self-taught and developed his own process for research. I'd be interested to know how he came to collaborate with Langston Hughes. You might be able to find good historical sources if you look into that. The original article is unclear about why WorldCat is important, so you might explain that a bit. Be sure to add the historical novels you found to the bibliography section.'''

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? I don't think so.

Tone and balance evaluation
'''My only concern for balance is to tread lightly in the section about Meltzer's human rights advocacy. I think this should be prominent but could risk politicization. Perhaps use one or two of his works as examples of ways he spoke out against injustices and dictatorships.'''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Might be more
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
'''I wonder if you could find more information in historical newspapers, as the sources currently prioritize obituaries and tributes. There are a few duplicate links in the references (5&7, 15-16, 18-19). Nice Wikipedia link additions for the WPA and Pfizer; you might add them for the Seminole people, piracy, and University of Oregon Special Collections (external).'''

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? Yes, but from the original article
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Could be improved

Organization evaluation
'''I like that you clarified headings from the original article. You might try adding the death section into "Personal Life." (I've been confused about where to put this for my own article!) I suggest changing the list of works to be chronological. For the main section, try "Professional Career" with subsections for military, writing, and teaching.'''

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media -- N/A


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
I'd be interested to see a picture of Meltzer, if there is one that fits Wikipedia's requirements.

For New Articles Only -- N/A
''' 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
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adds more context to the original article
 * How can the content added be improved? Fix grammatical errors to improve clarity and change the structure to be chronological

Overall evaluation
'''I really appreciate the greater context you have added to the original article, as the original reads like a list of facts. It seems that you and I are facing similar challenges with our original articles, as both preference obituaries for sources and have grammatical errors to fix. I think the information you have uncovered about Meltzer's human rights advocacy and professional collaborations are important and could be added to the lead. This is a great start to a revision that will certainly improve the original article!'''