User:Hmleonard/The Great C/Spencerqolney Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: Hmleonard


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Hmleonard/The Great C


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The Great C

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has been updated to reflect more information about the author as well as new content concerning the plot of the novel and its VR adaptation.
 * 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, other than the article's "Subtext" section. However, it is a smaller section and including that info in the lead may be redundant.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, everything added to the article is relevant and contextually rich.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is neutral while remaining respectful of Philip K Dick and his work.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, any viewpoints presented in the article are neutral and given equal representation.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It appears, yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Due to the nature of sub-genres such as science fiction, available resources on relating topics are often limited and niche. As far as I can tell, the article's author has included the best sources to their availability.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * 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.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the article is more complete and up to date with its new additions.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added, notably the section on the story's VR adaptation, brings a contemporary relevance to the pages information. In addition to that, the new plot summary gives a more in-depth and engaging description of the events occurring within the story.