User:SarahAnnieShaw/Rebecca Wilson Bresee/Haley McDaniel 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

 * SarahAnnieShaw
 * User:SarahAnnieShaw/Rebecca Wilson Bresee

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
The lead is very concise and offers some insight into what the rest of the article will be about. I would suggest adding a bit more description of what she is known for (such as her lead animator role on Frozen II) as the information is mentioned elsewhere, but not in the lead.

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
The content is all relevant and up-to-date.

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
The content is completely neutral and does not appear to be biased in anyway.

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
All of the sources are working and current. Though the LinkedIn source is not completely necessary if the information it offers can be found in the other sources already linked.

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
Everything is very well-written and well organized into relevant sections, though I would suggest removing the 'career history' section unless there is more information to be added. In the beginning paragraph the number of years that Bresee has worked at Disney is also cited, but I would suggest removing this as the number of years she's worked their is prone to change if she has not retired and the year she joined the company is already mentioned in the lead.

There are no grammar errors.

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
There are no images.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Overall the article seems to meet Wikipedia's Notability guideline and include several recent sources on the subject. The article is categories beneath several section headings, includes an infobox, and has a wide variety of links to different articles.

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
Overall the article is well done and includes a lot of relevant information. I would suggest adding a bit more information to the beginning of the article as it only mentions that she works for Disney, but not what she does. The movie titles that were used in the opening paragraph might also do better to link out to their respective wikipedia articles.