User:Blusolace/The Entire History of You/Cavaliergirl96 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? :
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: "The Entire History of You"

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, but that didn't seem necessary.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes and no. It does not mention the "analysis" section, but it does mention the other sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No.

Lead evaluation: The lead is concise and easy to follow.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The "analysis" section needs to be renamed or possibly removed. The information about people misunderstanding the ending is interesting and adds context to the story itself, but saying that is analysis makes it sound more like an essay than a Wikipedia article.

Content evaluation: The analysis section needs to be retitled or removed. Also, give the quotes more of an introduction or, better yet, write them in your own words.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Some is and some is not.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Brooker's interpretation of the ending might bias readers about how to interpret the ending.
 * 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? Although it is interesting to read, Brooker's interpretation feels biased.

Tone and balance evaluation: Reworking the content and potentially introducing it differently will make it more neutral.

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? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation: These seem fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation: The language could be simplified a bit more and the two new sections need more paragraph breaks.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The added information really did help me understand the episode better and helped me see how the writers/showrunner interpreted the ending, but it felt a bit biased.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is well-researched and includes interesting information.
 * How can the content added be improved? Condense the language and rewrite the new content to be more neutral. Maybe include the opinion of someone who disagrees with Brooker's assessment of Liam.

Overall evaluation: Really impressed you added so much new material. With some more work, the article should be really nice.