User:RoseHarris2020/Blue Nights/SamMeurer 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

 * Reviewing: RoseHarris2020
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:RoseHarris2020/Blue Nights

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
From reading your bibliography and current draft, I am under the impression that you are not changing the lead of the article, but rather the amount of content in the body of the page. Reviewing the current lead on the Blue Nights page, I think it reflects the content of the novel fairly well. From a visual standpoint, the big block quoted text seems out of place. Maybe there is a way to reformat that and make it look cleaner? If you have extra time, this could be something to consider!

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
I believe that the content you have is relevant to the topic. Adding Background, Summary, and Reception headings is exactly the move I would've taken had I done an article like this. I think you are writing about the memoir from all angles, and I believe that is the correct approach, especially with the form the book is written in. Memoirs are very compact and a lot can be said about them past the contents within the book itself.

I love the narrative that you give in the background section.It is carefully written out to provide an extensive background of Joan, John, and Quintana.

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
I believe that the added elements to this article are rather neutral. The background section will be a strong element once the citations are incorporated. I believe all viewpoints are represented fairly. Considering this memoir is not only about Joan, but also John's mourning process, I think that adding that sentence at the end of the background section was particularly important for an unbiased and equally represented view.

My only warning is be careful when you are looking for sources for your "Review" section. These types of sections can convey bias rather quickly, so make sure you are looking for the most reliable and unbiased sources on this topic. This will make your article so strong.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
Even though there are no sources incorporated directly, I appreciate your efforts in mapping out where the citations will go. I believe they are spread out rather nicely in your background section. I am not sure if your Summary section will have sources, but if it does, keep that same throughout format that I mentioned with the Background section.

The sources are rather current. There are no links to click on the draft, but the sources that you mentioned keeping on the page do 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
I think your content is well-written, concise, and clear. The narrative in the Background section had the possibility to get clunky, but your excellent writing skills pushed past this possibility and provided the reader with an excellent background of the memoir.

I do think that the Background section should be broken up into paragraphs. I am not sure where you should split it, but I think it would read a bit easier if you did. Other than that, great work. I love the sections that you are adding to this article, and I know it will be neatly organized in the finished product.

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?

Images and media evaluation
No images and media were added in this draft.

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
I believe that the content you are adding to this article is superb. I've already mentioned your strengths and possible improvements above, but I want to reiterate that you are taking the exact approach that you need to with this article. I know you really enjoy Joan Didion's works and her life, so I know that you will take great care of this article and make it the best you can.