User:Alank202/Micromégas/Nestorthemidwaycat 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? Alank202
• Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alank202/Microm%C3%A9gas/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography
• User:Alank202/sandbox

(note: I just found that the draft is in his personal sandbox and not the link provided, so I will update accordingly with more peer review tomorrow (12:39am 11/10/2020)

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• not yet
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Yes, because I believe Alan plans to add things about critical analysis about it
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no because the sections do not exist
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Yes, there's some info about a technique that Micromegas uses that other authors of the time used that isn't really in the rest of the article as of yet.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
• It's pretty concise but in a not great way and could have another sentence or something aboyt why it is "a significant development in the history of literature"

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Yes! There are two new sections: 1 about its publication and the other about the influence of Lucien
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Seems to be !
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• I have not read the novella so I cannot comment on its veritit but I think everything looks up to sort.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
• I would say: no.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Looks fairly neutral but nothing was added
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• there are no claims.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• well, there is only content from the story, so everything else is underrepresented
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
• Don't think so as it is just a plot evaluation.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Yes! There seem to be three new sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• There are only three sources in the bib, so I would say no to that question as there are for sure more than three sources out there on the internet.
• Are the sources current?
• Current as in written in the latter half of the 20th century, but there is no sources written after 1985-- so at minimum the sources are over 30 years old.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• There's one source written by a woman
• Check a few links. Do they work?
• The only link added works! And is a good source.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• I'll talk about the content already there: it honestly could be written better-- like I'm not a real writer but I think I could do a better job writing this article than what is currently there and thus I think that Alan can beef up the prose as well! The new content is very well written!
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• nothing major but stylistic-wise it is pretty sad. (alan's stuff is a-ok :) )
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
• Yes-- it seems to be going that way everything looks swell.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

there are no images at the moment

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

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

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• Yes-- for sure! critical analysis is already good
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• secondary sources add other viewpoints making a more rounded article
• How can the content added be improved?
• maybe some references in other literature / popular culture could be added?