User:808TR777/Game design document/Kev2kus 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? (Jytweve)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Alter ego

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Judging from the title, it was clear that the article was going to talk about alter ego.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the article begins with a definition of Alter ego to give readers a general sense of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, there appears to be no description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything looks in order.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is short brief and organized.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, contents seems relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, content dates from last year, 2019, so it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content seems fine.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this is an article about Alter ego, so no bias is presented here.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is an informative article with informative content.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No biased present in this article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All viewpoints are represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No persuasive elements are present in this article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all sources are either scholarly documents or from research platforms.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources are sufficient.
 * Are the sources current? Yes the sources are current as of last year (2019).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, they are clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical or spelling errors present.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article has two sections that are brief yet the contents in those sections are informative.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The images do not enhance my understanding of the topic but it does add the much needed visual effect. However, one thing that I would have like to see are more modern images to capture alter ego in today's popular culture.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes the images are well captured.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they adhere to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No much appealing as these images are very old dating from far back as to the 1700s.

For New Articles Only (This article is not a new article)
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 the added sources provides more context to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They offer informative context to the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Nothing much, but one small thing would be to include modern images to portray alter ego in today's society.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article was quite informative and offers a general overlook of what alter ego is.