User:ALogan21/Draft:Patsy Jo Hilliard/Micahjwalls Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Jfordyce7 and User:Jireh.conerly

Link to draft you're reviewing

Patsy Jo Hillard

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead itself has solid information, but I'm not sure it is structured in the best way possible. Some of the links to other articles are in odd places, and the overall flow of the lead needs to be reworded, or at least reorganized. For the most part, the lead introduces the article's major sections, but there could definitely be more added. I wouldn't say it is overly detailed, in fact I would say it is under detailed. I would like to see it flow better, with a little bit more information and a better overall structure in the lead.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date, but there isn't a ton of it. I noticed that the achievement section of the article had a list of achievements, but no explanation in the earlier sections. I feel as if these are excellent achievements that deserve some explanation and backstory. The achievements and the career sections are practically the same, and I think just adding a little bit more information on each of these achievements would give your article more information and an overall better flow.

Tone and Balance

The content is certainly neutral. There isn't any bias or anything close to personal opinions in the article. There is nothing about the article that tries to persuade or push any kind of idea. Strictly informational, which is good.

Sources and References

All the content comes straight from the sources, and from what I can tell, the first source is certainly a reliable one. The only issue I notice from that source is that it comes from 2010. I wasn't able to access the other source through the link posted therefore I am not able to determine how reliable that source is. There seemed to be a good amount of information in the first source that wasn't mentioned in the article itself, so if you were looking for more content, maybe consider using some more of that information.

Organization

The content is written decently, but it could definitely be confused. I would try reading some of the sentences out loud, because there are a few of them that don't flow very well. I didn't notice any spelling errors, but there were some sentences that didn't feel correctly written. Like I mentioned earlier, the career and achievements sections feel the same, and the best way to fix that would be expanding on some of those achievements in the career sections. Give some background, explain how she was able to achieve what she did.

Images and Media

There is only image, and it is of Patsy Jo, which is who the article is about, therefore it is serving the right purpose. The caption doesn't really say anything other than her name, and I would personally like to see the image closer to the lead section, so that it is one of the first things you see when you open the article page. The image file does not have information on its copyright and licensing status, therefore it will be removed soon unless that information is provided.

New Article / Overall Impressions

There are only two sources, and one of them does not work, therefore that needs to be added to and fixed. This article isn't linked very well. I went to her husband's Wikipedia page, and her name is on the page itself, but isn't linked. The links on Patsy's page itself don't really do much for the article, other than the link to the husband. I would continue to add more information, sources, links, and even media to improve it.