User:Whimsy123/Redefining Realness/MaxB97 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? (Whimsy123)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Whimsy123/Redefining Realness

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The first summary sentences should be your lead tbh.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? NO

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• 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? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? An Interview With Janet Mock link does not work, it requires a login.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No(t that I know of.)
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

I would add header sections within the plot summary to better organize the layout.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not yet
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

Add some images, such as the book cover if you can tiptoe your way across the landmine field that is Wikipedia Copyright guidelines.

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? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Sources accurately cover things so far.
• 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? Should use some more section headings but yup.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? YES

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is definitely more complete, for an in-depth analysis is being added.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Lots of detail, lots of external links to other parts of Wikipedia.
• How can the content added be improved? More organization in the plot summary section, more parts added to reception of the novel.

Overall evaluation

You're doing great Whimsy123, I know you're drowning in a Wikipedia tsunami of work but keep it up, we're rooting for ya.