User:SarahAnnieShaw/Rebecca Wilson Bresee/Professortitan 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? SarahAnnieShaw
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:SarahAnnieShaw/Rebecca Wilson Bresee

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I'm a little thrown off by the formatting of the article. Should the Introduction section be bumped to the top above the overall contents pull down menu to form a proper lead? I'll evaluate the introduction as if it is the lead regardless.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not really. Should probably start with a "Rebecca Wilson Bresee is a computer animator for Disney" or something.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does for most of it. The biography section is omitted, but I'm not sure this is a big deal.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? If you take the introduction as being the lead, then yeah, it does provide information about her education that isn't mentioned in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Again, if the Introduction is to be taken as the lead, then yes, it is overly detailed, which makes me question whether or not this was its intended purpose. However, the introduction section does have a lot of the information that would belong in the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I would definitely say so. When doing an article about someone's life, it seems important to detail their childhood (relatives, birthplace, etc), adulthood (education and milestones) and current projects. It has started this well.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I would say so. Frozen 2 was only just released and is probably the last movie she worked on that has been publicly announced.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are a lot of gaps in her life that could probably be expanded upon in greater detail.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It does seem neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It does not seem biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It doesn't seem to sway one way or the other.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I think it might suggest that we are supposed to really like her work. Does she have any controversy in her life? Negative reviews or anything like that?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Everything is backed up by secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think there is likely more to be found that could be critical of her work and I think more could be found in general.
 * Are the sources current? The sources all come from the last year, so yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it does this really well. It is the strongest point of the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I can see, again the writing is its strongest point.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Right now the stuff on Frozen seems a little off, but I understand why it is there since it was likely her biggest undertaking. However, it could probably

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? Yes, there are at least three sources provided that aren't provided by Disney itself.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I do think there is more to find out there, but what is here is a very solid start.
 * 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? Yes, it does provide infoboxes and section headings, but again the lead/introduction is a little confusing. It might be better to focus on adding a clearly defined lead and then spread the introduction stuff into other sections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there are links to many of her projects as well as her employer and the place where she studied. However, it does seem to be missing a few opportunities to link things in a few places.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Definitely yes. It is a very solid start.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Right now it has the foundations of the article and it gets at directly who she is in terms of her public persona. It just lacks finer details.
 * How can the content added be improved? Again, just reorganize some sections and flesh out the finer details to make for a more comprehensive read.

Overall evaluation
Very, very solid work. Like I said, excellent foundation for a rough draft. Sounding like a broken record here, but the lead/introduction bit is the most glaring difference to me just because it seems out of place with most other articles I've seen so far. Also, tweak the Frozen section in order to emphasize its importance. Why does it get special mention over her other projects?