User:Kbae67/Jennifer Armentrout/Ey1123 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Kbae67

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Kbae67/sandbox

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

Jennifer Armentrout

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead:

• The lead has been updated to include the fact that she still lives in West Virginia, she publishes under a pseudonym, and highlights different notable accomplishments.
• The lead's introductory sentence is concise and clear and includes the most relevant information.
• The lead does include a brief description of each of the major sections.
• The lead does not include information that isn't present in the rest of the article.
• The lead is concise. It could possibly even include additional information from the current version of the article, such as who her publishers are or the fact she has a movie adaptation.

Content:

• All the content seems relevant to the topic.
• Most of the content seems up-to-date. I did go to Jennifer Armentrout's website and counted more than 57 books, although some of them may not be published yet. The current Wikipedia article lists 63 books. If it isn't possible to find a more recent secondary source confirming this number, it might be more accurate to say "as of September 2019, she had 53 books published."
• I think the notes about content to add in the future summarize what the article is currently missing. I also assume the "publications" section will include the information from the current article.
• The article is about a prolific female author who clearly has some notable awards. It's possible this article wasn't as detailed as it deserved to be because of the significant male skew of Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance:

• The content seems neutral, there are no claims about the quality or importance of her work being made. Any indication of that is represented by her objective accomplishments or failures.
• There seems to be no effort to persuade the reader towards a particular position or conclusion.

Sources and References:

• It seems like all of the sources are interviews that have likely been edited, so they are valid secondary sources. It might help to find a non-interview secondary source if possible.
• Most of the content seems to reflect the sources. The sentence "her first experience with writing took place during high school algebra class" is a bit vague. It was unclear to me what about the algebra class caused her to start writing in it. After looking into the source, it seems like she was just bored during algebra class and started writing in it (although she doesn't explicitly state that). I might rephrase it to something like "she started to write while she was in her high school algebra class," or provide some additional context if you can find it.
• All of the links to the source work.
• The sources are rather lengthy interviews, so they are pretty thorough. Most of them are current enough given the information in the article, although the part about how many books she has published is going to constantly evolve.

Organization:

• The content is all concise, clear, and easy to read.
• The content is broken down into appropriately organized sections.
• I noticed one grammatical error in the first sentence of the career section, where it says "Armentrout's first publish in 2011." Perhaps this was meant to say "Armentrout's first book was published in 2011."

Images and media:

• It would probably be appropriate to keep the image from the original article.