User talk:Cry598a/Jan Spivey Gilchrist

Peer Review Notes: Jan Spivey Gilchrist Article Point-by-Point Evaluation

Lead: In saying, “Jan Spivey Gilchrist is an award-winning African-American author, illustrator, and fine artist.[1] She is most well-known for her work in children's literature, especially illustrations in The Great Migration: Journey to the North, Nathaniel Talking, and My America.[2] Gilchrist's work has been awarded numerous accolades…” you effectively state the most important information about the article’s subject. I feel I can glean the importance of this topic. While the remainder of the section does overview the rest of the article, it is a bit detail heavy. There is some information that doesn’t reemerge in the body of the story, and––if that information were to be added in the appropriate section––its presence in the lead would become redundant. As a result, I suggest limiting the lead to the part I have isolated and adding the rest of the content to an “Awards” section or making it fit in with your “Legacy” heading.

Structure: The sections of this article are well organized and are presented in a sensible (chronological) order. I would not recommend any changes in this area.

Balance: This article provides a good overview of Gilchrist’s life and accomplishments. It does not attempt to sway readers to any particular point of view. While the information is well cited, the majority of the information comes from one source. The author’s biography is cited 20 times, as compared to the second most used source, which is cited four times. I would suggest incorporating a broader range of sources to ensure the article is comprehensive.

In order to provide additional viewpoints and positions, I would also suggest including a section about how her work is received. Mentioning (credible) reviewers and their feedback would add a lot of substance to this story.

Neutrality: The content of this page is neutral. I could not guess the author’s perspective by reading the article. Gilchrist’s life and accomplishments are stated without overwhelmingly positive or negative information. However, I do question the reference to her as a “prolific” artist in the Legacy section. This does feel a bit evaluative.

Sources: As I mentioned previously, the sources you use are high quality and you cite all your information thoroughly. You use both textbooks and articles from scholarly journals and databases. However, the use of each source is highly unbalanced and a little variation would help ensure the article is wholly representative.

Summary of Review

1.	What does the article do well?

Your addition of the “Early Life,” “Career,” “Legacy” and “Publications” headings provided a lot of depth to this article. The information is also thoroughly cited and reveals no author bias. I particularly liked the section about her traveling to the museum with her father. This provided a lot of insight into the artist’s life and her motivations to create work that reflected her own life.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?

While the lead has a lot of good information, it could be shortened. Mentioning the author has received a lot of awards could lead to a heading that specifically details each one. Furthermore, you have some of accomplishments in the lead that differ from the “Legacy” section. I think you could improve the article by consolidating this information in one place.

I also think your “Publications” section is a bit long. I would suggest breaking it up into “Illustrated Works” and “Authored and Illustrated Works.”

The Wikipedia guidelines also discourage quote usage when possible. The direct quote of Gilchrist’s in the “Early Life” section can be summarized and cited. This would make the section flow better and wouldn’t change the intended effect of the quote.

On the formatting side of things, make sure you italicize book titles. Have you considered including a photograph of the author or some of her illustrations?

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The biggest change I would suggest is to add a section to explain her style. Right now, I come away from this article knowing she’s been widely recognized and won a lot of awards, but I don’t know what it is about her work that has made this impact.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I appreciated your concise wording. You have successfully integrated a lot of information into an easily readable format. After reading this article, I am inspired to trim my group’s page down a bit. This seems to match the tone of Wikipedia quite well!

Tstanek06 (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review from tstanek06
Thank you for your considerate feedback on our article! You provided us with a lot to think about and we're working on including some of your suggestions into the final article. We've changed the format of our Publications section so it is easier for the reader to discern illustrated works from authored and illustrated, as well as, easier to read generally. We're working on expanding our article to include a section on Gilchrist's style and to incorporate more critical understanding of her work in the Style and Legacy sections. We're hoping to rely on some other articles and published reviews to provide a description of her style. Unfortunately, there aren't too many resources that provide insight into her life so we're trying to determine if any information can be cited from different sources. Again, thank you for your honest and considerate comments on our work! We hope you're able to read the finished product.

Cry598a (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)