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
(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)
 * 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

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?