User:MaxB97/A Visitation of Spirits/Angelacgeorge Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

GREAT JOB MAX!

General info

 * I am reviewing MaxB97's article on A Visitation of Spirits.
 * User:MaxB97/A Visitation of Spirits

Lead
Guiding questions: MISSING LEAD - In already published article


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not yet!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Nope
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Nada

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, very relevant!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Needs more plot information

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Mostly, but perhaps a little analytical in the Christinanity paragraph when it says " Kenan alludes to and ultimately criticizes a large amount of how Christian values are wrongly applied"
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Negatory
 * 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? Perhaps in what is mentioned above ^

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? Mostly
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work but one has an incorrect title

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 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, very concise

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? A very useful timeline
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes!!!!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, super visually appealing

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 infoboxes, 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? Yes! Definitely
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very concise and clear, especially the family tree portion with a physical diagram to make it less confusing.
 * How can the content added be improved? Perhaps elaborate further on the three last sections (which I'm sure are not yet complete)