User:DanaGhouse/Renée Watson/ParkerHeustess 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? DanaGhouse
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:DanaGhouse/Renée Watson

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead describes the author, and every major section is covered or (like Personal Life) is self explanatory.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Absolutely yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the citations are all recent or within recent enough time to seem relevant.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not believe there is any missing content, and all of the added content is related to the topic at hand.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral and not pushing a position.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are not.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the information is presented in a neutral fashion.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I do not see anything of that sort within the content.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, I see reliable sources added to all added content, from primary sources such as interviews or news pieces.
• 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? I checked 10 links at random and they all work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well written, concise, and easy to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, the content appears to be grammatically correct. There are some minor errors, most notably on a second reading: "Watson has taught poetry at DreamYard and is a member of the 2019 Board of Directors." has an awkwardly placed period with regards to citation. Also, "a Portalnd-based nonprofit organization" Portland is spelled wrong
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. All major subjects appear covered.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
• 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? N/A
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article feels more complete than it's current state. DanaGhouse added a great deal of content and expounded upon the article effectively and efficiently.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The volume of information has greatly increased. The current article feels more like a stub, and this article feels much, much more complete.
• How can the content added be improved? My main suggestion would be to double check grammar and punctuation. There are minor issues but nothing a little proofreading could not fix!