User:Chainthasher/Psyren/GabrielleLohse Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Chainthasher


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Chainthasher/Psyren
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Psyren
 * Psyren

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello,

I really like the draft you have going so far. The Wiki page for Psyren, as it stands, is incredibly vast. I initially noticed that there were many opportunities to condense some sections of the page in order to increase its readability. I think that your sandbox draft already has a good grasp on making some of the information more concise and user-friendly! The draft is organized well, reads easily, and conveys some key components of Psyren.

It did initially take a few readings to understand what exactly you were describing in the article body of your sandbox draft (Burst, Trance, Rise etc.). I think that maybe you could explore including a smaller Lead section under the heading "Psi". This could introduce the section that follows, and would further organize the information that you've gathered. "Psi" is noted within the plot summary of the original article, but I found that it gets slightly lost within the larger scope of the plot. I think that the plot section could be a good opportunity to edit down some of the content, and even link certain aspects of the series to other sections of the Wiki page. This would make it easier for the reader to navigate from plot summary, to more in-depth information about the components of the series that make up the plot.

I am wondering if there is an opportunity to explore some more sources and references. Many of the sources appear to be the content itself, which is great and informative on its own, but I think that some varying perspectives from credible sources could further enhance the page as a whole. Finding some notable sources could also help to expand on the production and development areas of your sandbox draft. These changes could allow readers to explore not only the series, but how it is absorbed and reviewed from a larger cultural scope.

One of the strengths of your article is level of detail, I appreciated that you have explored this topic to such depth. I found that all of the information you have included in your sandbox draft conveys information that seems relevant to the series as a whole. With some small organizational tweaks, I think that you can easily combine your drafted changes and the original article to create something effective and informative!

Gabrielle Lohse