Talk:Deep Survival

Megan O'Reilly Peer Review
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

Only because it hasn't been delved into more, but the sections left blank are the only things that could possibly be out of place

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

Seems like everything so far is an objective and neutral account of the guide book.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Since there isn't too much written down, I cannot tell.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

Yes, the link worked. Yes, it is a specific work in relation to novel.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

Not yet, but the one link is a reliable primary source.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

No.

Peer Review Format
'''First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

I think the choice of article is great, because it sounds like an interesting topic that can be full of information.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

Not necessarily, main reason is because I haven't seen the article in its full entirety.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Just find more info, but you seem like you're on the right track!