User talk:NotSentimental/Mayra Santos-Febres/Aaranda13 Peer Review

Aaranda13 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC) I am reviewing NotSentimental and Hjwalke2 work.

Link to draft you're reviewing: Leadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayra_Santos-Febres

Though newly added sections are still under construction, information added to the existing section is briefly touched upon in the lead. The lead provides a thorough list of the literary styles the writer has contributed to. Most of the sections are discussed in the lead however, the writer's activism is not revisited later in the article. Her work in children's literature is also not mentioned later in the article.

The content added provides information on the early life of the writer that had not yet been discussed in the article. The content includes all of the writers most recent work. I would suggest adding a section discussing the writer's activism and the influence of her literature.

The article for the most part uses unbiased language however, some sentences can be reworked to sound more neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased. The writer's personal life is not discussed in the article however, that section is still under construction. The article does not seem to build any arguments.

Most of the sources referenced are scholarly periodicals however, there are a few sources that come from mainstream media and some sources seem not to be complete. There is a good list of sources presented despite the length of the article. The majority of the sources were published within the last 10 years. The majority of the links work. There are only a few source links that need to be revised to function.

There are minimal grammar issues. The article is broken down into logical sections. However, I would revisit the placement of the Personal life section.

The article includes one image of the writer. The image does not have a caption. The image adheres to the copyright regulations. The image could be enlarged.

The information added to the article is relevant to the topic. Although some sections are still under construction, I believe they will be good additions to the article. Broken links have been fixed and the information added to the Early life section works well in the article. Again, I would suggest elaborating on the writer's work in activism.