User:Dinomonke33/Ark: Survival Ascended/AT WIKI AT Peer Review

General info
(Dinomonke33)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dinomonke33/Ark%3A_Survival_Ascended?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Ark: Survival Ascended

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No lead updated as it was not needed.
 * 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, it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the added content helps add more depth to every section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, there isn't any missing or irrelevant content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, it doesn't.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the added content has a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no biases as the added content focuses on facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, the article overrepresents the reception section while lacking in other sections.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added simply states facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) N/A
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? N/A
 * Are the sources current? N/A
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/A
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes it does.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? It has no grammatical error but there is room for improvement in the grammar used.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, it doesn't.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it is more in-depth.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added adds clarity to the sections of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more sections to the article as it only has 2 sections.