User:Gustavo.lopez7/Comedy film/Lessly.cortes 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? Gustavo.lopez7
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gustavo.lopez7/Comedy film

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 content is a little overly detailed witch I think it can be more resume and save the extra information for another section or sub-heading. Other than that, I think the introductory information is very clear and understandable.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The original article needs a lot of improvement in the sub-headings because they need more information to explain each comedy category. I suggest to add more information to the sub-headings. Up to now, I do not see any new content added to this article in the draft. The editor just corrected some grammatical errors. I think it could be helpful and understandable if the student makes a list of the movie titles after the information because each sub-heading has a brief information of the category and the rest is movie titles.

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
This article overall has a neutral tone and is not trying to persuade any reader. However, there are some underrepresented viewpoints in the original article that needs more information than movie titles. Also I think it would be very helpful if there is some images to make the article more interesting.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I clicked few links and one of them did not work, but the other ones I clicked they work perfectly. Some of the sources are current, but some of them are not. I suggest to find more available sources to improve this article.

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 article is not organize witch I recommend to add information to each of the sub-heading and make a list for the movies titles after your done adding the information. Although there is no new content added, the only information that is in the sandbox is clear and easy to read. The editor corrected the grammatical errors in the sandbox that the author of the article had on the original article.

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
The article does not have any images. I recommend to add more images to every sub-heading so it can catch the readers eyes.

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 info boxes, 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
First impression of the article I found it very interesting but while I was reading the article I noticed that it is very long and that has more movies titles than information itself. I recommend to add more images and information so it can be more understandable. Also I think It would be more helpful to contribute to the article if you copy al the article in the sandbox and work there directly. I can not say what are the strengths of the added content because the editor of this draft has not edited this article since October 1, 2020. The only thing I could say is right is the introductory paragraph that has no grammatical errors.