User:BarbequeWater/Minotaur/Wwustudent712 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BarbequeWater


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:BarbequeWater/Minotaur


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Minotaur

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No, a sentence or two about references in media could be added to reflect the new material.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?


 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, all added content is relevant to the topic, and there's nothing that doesn't belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Yes, the added content appears neutral and unbiased.
 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

New content is accurately backed up by sources. Sources are current, though some are older, they are relevant and solid. The sources range from books to movies (which is source material for references in media). The links work.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

For the most part, yes everything is clear and concise.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Just one part I saw could be rewritten, "who he believed to had killed his son." Apart from that, everything looks good.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, they added a new section that is very well organized.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, the article is definitely more complete.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

A new subsection of references for the article topic was added and helps flesh out the article.


 * How can the content added be improved?

I would say going through the article and seeing if anything could be reworded, added citations to the original article content, and maybe adding an image if available. The article is looking great!