User:Ahdavis07/The Quadroons (short story)/Roshnispatel 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? (provide username)
 * Ahdavis07, Snshipp1, Brandoncopper001, Amberericam, and Hdjones 1234
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Ahdavis07/The Quadroons (short story)

Lead
Guiding questions:

There isn't a lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * NA
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * NA
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * NA
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * NA
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * NA

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Generally, yes. There are small instances where some things don't seem like they belong
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes...?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In Background's second paragraph, the first sentence mentions Child was the first one to introduce a trope but its never specified which one (missing)
 * There doesn't need to be author information in the plot summary (does not belong)
 * The loose adaptation seems like a stretch, especially without any sources to back that claim up (does not belong)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The plot summary sounds more like you were describing the story to a friend and that you had a bias towards some characters
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * not really
 * 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?
 * not really

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * source #4 looks like a blog post, so I don't think so on that one but the others look fine
 * 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?
 * yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Its clear, but it could be more concise--it feels like its still a bit everywhere in certain parts
 * The character section isn't all that consistent, its fragmented and each character is introduced differently
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * a few grammar mistakes, but nothing that reading outloud won't fix
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The plot summary could be broken into sections, but the themes breaks its section down well

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

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? I'm a bit hesitant about a more sure answer
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I'm not too sure how much was available on the lit. but I think it could use a bit more
 * 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?
 * It does need an infobox and a lead section, maybe some more sections could be divided up with subheaders, but the general structure looks fine
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Only in the Influence section are there other linked articles, but the rest of the article doesn't

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Well, I'm assuming it was one made from scratch, so yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It has a lot of sections, which shows that there is a lot of information that they could pull from
 * I liked the themes section and how it divided the subheaders into another set of subheaders
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Lead, infobox with cover picture, and both plot summary and character list should be looked over the most