User:Christina.moore2/The Girl Who Was Plugged In/Deja.Sams 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? Christina.moore2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Christina.moore2/The Girl Who Was Plugged In

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
The lead does tell the audience what The Girl Who Was Plugged In is and who it was written by. However, it does not include a description of of the major sections that are later mentioned in the article such as a summary without giving away the article. It seems as though she was more focused on the author rather than the novella itself which the article focuses on.

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
The student only has one sentence in their sandbox that is not relevant to the topic of the article. Although it is not related it is up to date. If the student would elaborate more on the topic at hand it would be better. The article itself however seems to not have any loop holes or errors as far as what the student could change or add. So it maybe better if student choose a different article something that seems unfinished or try going through what is already there in the main space article evaluating the references that are their and what is written and either finding a way to phrase or delete or add to it.

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
The tone of the draft seems neutral not biased as far as the story is concerned but if I had more infor on where the student was going with their additions it would be easier to determine.

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 student does use a great reference in their Sandbox draft. It is reliable source about the story however they choose to only acknowledge the author instead of the work.

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
The draft seems incomplete. So it hard to tell where she would place her information.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media added.

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 feel as though the student need to do more research on their topic and find ways to connect their findings to the article.