User:Meganboddy/Blue (Jurassic World)/Dwill1209 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Megan Boddy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Meganboddy/Blue_(Jurassic_World)&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Meganboddy/Blue_(Jurassic_World)&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

yes, it immediately dives into who blue is as a character and her importance


 * 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?

No


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Yes, it includes the characters part within the movie

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No, everything that is there is relevant to the topic


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

No, its about a character on a movie

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, no specific sides are chosen


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, everything is represented in relation to the topic


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, it states basic information about the character

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, it comes from experts who have studied the movie well


 * 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?

Yes, come from forbes and others come from movie critics


 * 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.)

When it comes to movies or television shows the best sources are probably bigger magazines or acclaimed critics


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Yes, its guided very well


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are a few, when saying “a rex” I think you should specify if it’s a tyrannosaurus rex just for simplicity when reading. In the second paragraph you say “they di” and I'm sure you mean “they do”. There are also a few missing commas in places but besides that no.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes

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

*** There are no pictures in this article***


 * 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 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?

Yes it has several well known sources


 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

Yes, since this is a movie character the amount of sources is probably accurate in terms of the topic


 * 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?

I think that everything is laid out pretty well, I do think you should add a content box and some photos though


 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

No, that is another thing I think should be added to the article. For example when talking about the rex you should link information about the “rex” as well, and the same should be done for “Jurassic World” (as shown)

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, as someone who has never watched this movie I think the article explains the character well


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Since the article is new it is strengthened just by being there and teaching people about a character in this movie


 * How can the content added be improved?

Just by adding some pictures, grammar correcting and a few links.