User:Angelacgeorge/Loving Her/Jenni.mesa1023 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? Angelacgeorge
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Angelacgeorge/Loving Her

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? All of it is original content
• 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? Again, all original work
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's good and original

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, because it is original work
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, because it is a new article
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article isn't completed yet, but when it is, it should be fine.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yup
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nope
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Nope; it focuses mostly on the black lesbian genre because that is what the novel is about.
• 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? Hasn't done this yet
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Hasn't done this yet
• Are the sources current? Hasn't done this yet
• Check a few links. Do they work? No links yet

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, but incomplete
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not particularly
• 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? No
• Are images well-captioned? There are no pictures
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no pictures
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no pictures

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? She hasn't posted sources yet.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? She hasn't posted sources yet.
• 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? She hasn't posted sources yet.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? She hasn't posted sources yet.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It's good!
• What are the strengths of the content added? It's a brand new article, so it's way better than before
• How can the content added be improved? Just having the addition of sources would make everything better

Overall evaluation

It's very good so far. You just need to add your sources and talk about some of the themes of the books. Maybe some reviews as well.

Here's your kitten