User:Cry598a/Jan Spivey Gilchrist/Tobiascharis 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? Cry598a
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cry598a/Jan Spivey Gilchrist

Lead evaluation

The Lead has been altered to reflect a more concise, but thorough synopsis of Jan Spivey Gilchrist and her work. The Lead's introductory sentence succinctly says who it's talking about, her significance, and some of her notable works. For the most part, the rest of the Lead serves as a brief description of the article's major sections. There isn't really anything about Gilchrist's early life included, but there are brief descriptions about her career, legacy, and publications. The only unique information in the Lead is a sentence about the author's current status--living and working from Chicago. This detail is not found elsewhere in the article. The Lead is concise and effective.

Structure evaluation

The content is well-written; it is concise, to-the-point, and easy-to-read. I did not find any spelling or grammatical errors. The sections make sense and are in a logical order. It is a brief article, but it packs in a lot of facts about Gilchrist. I appreciate the reorganization from the original article. The new flow of "Lead > Early Life > Career > Legacy > Publications" makes more sense, and is more thorough than the original "Lead > Work > Notable Works > Exhibitions > Recognitions."

Balanced coverage evaluation

The content of the article is all relevant, and is what one would expect to see in a Wikipedia article about an author. The book list includes all of Gilchrist's books up through the You See Me, God, which will be released in June 2020. The personal information is up-to-date as well. One thing that could be improved would be the formatting of the publishing years associated with the books in her publication list. It's currently included as 'yyyymmdd.' An easier-to-read format would be helpful and would do a better job of quickly informing the reader of Gilchrist's place in the canon of African American children's literature, and to orient the reader to what the time range of her publications looks like.

Another section related to common themes found in Gilchrist's art and writing could be added to expand the range of the article. Additionally, there could also be a section about her public and/or critical reception.

Neutral content evaluation

The added and edited content is neutral. Everything is very factual and straightforward. There is nothing about her personal or critical reception, no controversies, no interpretations of themes. The content does not try to persuade the reader of any position.

Reliable sources evaluation

The content of the article is all cited. The sources are relatively thorough; I was not able to find a lot of secondary sources, so I imagine that the article editor was in the same boat. The sources are as current as I was able to find. The most cited author profile from Gale in Context was published in 2002. Some of the awards and publication citations are from more recently, but there aren't many articles about the author. One of the sources is from the author's own website, which is not ideal. A couple of other sources were accessed through UW Libraries, so they are behind a login, which isn't necessarily a problem, but it might be more useful if the link was not associated with UW. Another source is on the HarperCollins website, but the link is broken and does not go to a current page. In general, the citations could use a little work in terms of accessibility and reliability. There is a heavy reliance on the Gale profile--too much so. There needs to be a better balance of source usage. Looking at the original article, I'm a little surprised to find that there are some articles about Gilchrist that were not utilized in the new article--there are a couple of articles from the the LA Times and her local paper, as well as a couple of online-accessible books that have some analysis of her work.

Overall evaluation

Overall, the article content has been improved. It is more relevant and complete; it offers a more thorough depiction of Jan Spivey Gilchrist, her life, and her work. I like that there is a complete publications list instead of just her notable works, but it is difficult to read because it's so long. The awards section has also been thoughtfully put together. Interestingly, the references to the themes in Gilchrist's work have been mostly removed. Personally, I would have kept this, expanded it, and probably moved it to its own section. There's not really anything about what makes Gilchrist's artwork and writing unique present here. The sources, in general could use a little more work to improve accessibility, thoroughness, balance, and reliability.

Response to Peer Review

Thank you for your detailed feedback on our article! We appreciate the candor as you've given us a lot to work with in terms of editing our article. We've already changed the format of our Publications section so it is easier to read. We're also working on expanding the article to include information regarding Gilchrist's critical reception and style. We're hoping to create a new section for Style and incorporate more information on reception into her Legacy section. As you found, there aren't many resources that provide insight into Gilchrist's life other than the few we've cited. To balance citation and coverage, we'll be investigating articles and published reviews to provide a more detailed look at her work. Again, thank you for your considerate evaluation of our article! We hope you're able to read the finished product.

~~~~