User:RoseHarris2020/Blue Nights/SarahAnnieShaw 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? 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?
 * The Lead is really the background section, so I don't think so.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the background is a bit too detailed to be the lead, so if it is, then yes. If not, then no.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes definitely!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It seems to be.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't think so, but I don't know much about Blue Nights to begin with.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * It seems that if there is a bias it is towards Joan, but I think that is unavoidable in an article like this, and don't think it seems to sway towards any positive nor negative viewpoint.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Maybe an underrepresented viewpoint would be how it was received?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I don't believe so.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I cannot see the citations yet, so I am not certain.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are the sources current?
 * N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * N/A

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Definitely!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that my Grammarly saw!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. I think more sections could be added, but the two that are reflect the major points of the topic rather well.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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?
 * No
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Not currently

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I believe so, given that it had nothing to start with.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is very well-written and covers Blue Nights well.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Perhaps add more paragraphs instead of having everything in one major paragraph, and add the citations. Otherwise, it is a great start.

Overall evaluation
This is a great start! It is really well-written. I enjoyed it despite knowing nothing over the topic at all. (I forgot to publish this when I wrote this last, so I apologize for the lateness of this.)