User:Jaunarra/Of One Blood (novel)/Brandoncooper001 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? Jaunarra, Selenangeorge, TarnishaT, AnnaNSimon, Mason C Bennett,
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jaunarra/Of One Blood (novel)

Lead  N/A No 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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I believe so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No Lead, Historical Context, or Reception sections. No discussion of the text.

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.

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? Somewhat.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
More sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No. It is pretty choppy and doesn't flow very well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I saw.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
The Plot Summary needs some adjustments for flow. It just feels very choppy. Needs more sections.

Images and Media - N/A
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?

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? Only two.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No.
 * 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? It has some parts.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Not really.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The beginning of the Background section is well written.
 * How can the content added be improved? We need more.

Overall evaluation
There is a lot missing, and the reference section is not done correctly. Don't let the work seem overwhelming. You can do this! The word best fitting of my critique is more.

Brandoncooper001 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)