User:Daisja30/We Can Remember It for You Wholesale/Cavaliergirl96 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: We Can Remember It for You Wholesale

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There was no need to update the lead because the changes made did not warrant it.
 * 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.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It includes information about Space Adventure Cobra, but does not mention it anywhere else.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation: I wish the lead had a little more information, but I think adding a few more sections to the article and mentioning those new sections would be a good remedy.

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? No.

Content evaluation: Everything seems to be in place!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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? No.

Tone and balance evaluation: The article is neutral and balanced.

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: Note #3 probably should be a full citation instead of a little bit of info on the title and the writers. Also, if the Wesleyan Anthology of Science Fiction does not have a Wikipedia page, it should be listed without a link. Removing the link to a nonexistent page and keeping the information itself would be an improvement.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes and no. The lead is concise, but the synopsis is too long. Condensing some of the information would keep the content accurate while also making it more brief. That is not the Daisja30's fault, but it is something that needs to be fixed before the end of the semester.
 * 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: Condensing the language in the synopsis would make the synopsis easier to follow.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. Adding the new citation and the new sentence in "film adaptations" helped.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The new sentence helps highlight how the movies all share similarities to the original content.
 * How can the content added be improved? Probably condensing the language further would be an improvement.

Overall evaluation: The article is clear and easy to follow. Condensing the language in the synopsis would help as well as removing a link where none is needed.