User:Bridgette96/Game studies/Vada.amerson 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) Bridgette96
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Game studies

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
I think that the lead is clear on what is said, however I think that it could improve on grammar errors and make the lead flow more smoothly.

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?

Content evaluation
I think some of the content is relevant to what was being said in the introduction. I think that content about "Other areas of research" shouldn't be there because it's only one sentence, and I think just getting rid of that, and having the other four other research present in the article is fine. I think for the most part that everything is up-to-date, however I noticed in the references that there is an article about from 1971 that probably is out-to-date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

==== Tone and balance evaluation I think that the some of the content is neutral based upon facts. I don't think there was any point in the article that had a biased opinion, everything was based on facts. I think the viewpoint in "Game Culture" at the bottom of the article is a little underrepresented because it doesn't provide enough content to be informative. I think it needs to add more clarity in the section. I think some of the content is persuasive in the psychological section of the content where brain activity can speed up. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

==== Sources and references evaluation The content is backed by secondary sources such as articles. The sources are current with what's going in the world of video games. Some of the sources are thorough when it comes to discussing the facts about it such as "The Last of Us." Some of the sources have good links. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

==== Organization evaluation I think the content is some of it is well-written, it just needs to be polished. Some of it doesn't need to be vague. Some of have grammar errors when it comes to punctuation and comma errors as well as fragmentation sentences. It is broken down into sections that make sense, however I would fix the capitalization errors, and not making bold headings in the sections. ====

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?

==== Overall evaluation I think the overall improvements about citations is that it's great because some of the links are workable. Some of the article is complete, it just needs some tweaking and needs to be more polished. It just needs to clean up some of grammar errors, and getting rid of the sections that aren't necessary. Also, improve a section by adding more content to a small section, and trying to make it sound more informative. ====