User:Tobiascharis/Patricia McKissack/SBryan29 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) Tobiascharis
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tobiascharis/Patricia McKissack

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, particularly to reflect that the subject has died so should be written about in the past tense.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

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? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? There's still some language from the current article that could be made to read in a more neutral tone.
 * 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? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Mostly -- there are a few things that could use more / reused sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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?

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, much better
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Dividing the article into personal and professional sections makes it much easier to read
 * How can the content added be improved? Omitting a few more of the current article's unsupported sentences would make it more neutral.

Overall evaluation
Good job repairing the tense agreement that was making the current article hard to read -- it was clear that part of the article was written while McKissack was still alive, owing to the use of the present tense, and now that McKissack is deceased, it's appropriate to change everything to the past tense. You might reread through again -- there's a sentence at the end of the Personal section -- presumably about the work published posthumously -- that still needs to be changed to the past tense, or reworked.

Some notes:

You might want to try to find or reuse citations for the paragraph in Personal Background about the McKissacks' sons -- particularly the sentence about the twins being inspiration for "Who Is Who?" That paragraph is unchanged from the current version, but you might want to edit it to sound less like it was taken from some unknown source or else find that source. I'd omit the bit about the McKissacks enjoying gardening and visits from their grandson, for example and stick to the relevant facts.

I like that you've created separate biographical sections for Personal and Career. It reads much better this way.

In the Career section, again I might rework some of the sentences from the current version that sound like they were written by someone else but aren't properly cited. For example, the sentence "She spent considerable time writing 20 non-fiction books before she wrote her first picture book," stands out and the ensuing bits about the editor muddy the waters. This all could be simplified to "She wrote 20 (or many) non-fiction books before Flossie & The Fox, a fictional picture book (about…), was published in 1986 by Dial Press."

Is there a citation to support the indication that "The Dark Thirty" was written from childhood memories?

The last sentence in the Career section talks about "the most famous" book by the McKissacks -- can you rework this to be more neutral? Maybe just say "including" instead here.

I'm not sure it's required, but on my article I added links to the lists of awards and honors, where available, just so they can be externally verified. Most of them -- like the Coretta Scott King Award -- are pretty easy to find.

All in all, great job on your article, Charis! I think it's much improved from the current version.

-Sarah