User:Alexander cookRCBC/Artificial intelligence in video gamesgence in video games/Alexander cookRCBC 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? (Wilkens Exavier)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Wilkens Exavier/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * not lead information
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * not lead information
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes in a "tree format" descriptive chunks.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * overly detailed at points like "to create an Upper Confidence Bound 1applied to trees, called UCT. The process algorithm adds the exploitation term (wᵢ / sᵢ) to the exploration term, (sqrt(ln sₚ / sᵢ) that results in the UCT, which determines the selection for the best possible path of nodes that the AI can anticipate. The numbers that i represents in the exploitation term represents the the number of situation that ended in a win added to the total number of simulations." this could be moved to own heading.

Lead evaluation
just needs some formatting of points overall excellent neutrality and topic grasping speech.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes as it is a form.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes most sources are in last five years
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes as stated above just a shift of the end passage to its own heading.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no all desc. information.
 * 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?
 * needs more academic
 * 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?
 * yes very well read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * needs work

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


 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?