User:Nicolerewis/The Half-Breed (short story)/Ashtayoh 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? The Half-Breed (short story)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicolerewis/The Half-Breed (short story)

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? Not really. I feel like the introductory sentence needs to give the reader a better sense of what he or she will be reading. The introductory sentence here just tells where the story is set, but it leads into more info.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, although you could always add more info on the author and time when the story was written.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I don't believe so.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I don't think it is overly detailed. I think it is a good start. I looked at a few other examples of already published articles and they included info on the author, time period, and genre of the work so that may be something else that can be included in the lead.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is off to a good start. I would just try to look at other leads and see what kind of information is included and how it is worded to give readers a good idea of what they will be reading.

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? I don't believe so, other than info on publication history and style are missing. I would suggest having the characters in a list rather than side-by-side.

Content evaluation
Overall, it is starting to come together. Publication history and style need to be added in. I would also make sure that everything within the article flows as one person is typing all of it. I noticed a few grammar and typing/spelling errors so having everyone go in, read, and edit it would help.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Most of the content is neutral. I would probably take out the sentence that begins with "Surprisingly, this does not set the tone for the story..." only because it seems more of an opinion that a statement.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that stuck out to me.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There really isn't enough content to be able to tell. I think the rough draft is doing a good job in speaking from the narrator's point of view rather than an outsider who is reading the story.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not really. I would probably take out "this is not true. Peter Brown has not been murdered" and wait until the end to say, "Although Boddo tries to save Arrow-Tip from facing the death penalty, he is too late."

Tone and balance evaluation
Once all of the information is added, it will be easier to tell how balanced the article is. More information could be added under each section on the work, the author, and the plot. The biggest thing with tone and balance is to make sure it sounds like one person wrote all of it and the grammar, spelling, etc. is correct.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? From what I can tell, yes. I would definitely try to find more relevant sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I didn't see too many quotes from the sources listed so I would try to add more sources and more information and quotes from the sources listed.
 * Are the sources current? I'm not sure how often the Walt Whitman Archive updates, but the others do not seem to be written within the last 20 years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, but there are two sources from the Walt Whitman Archive, one from a newspaper, and a Wikipedia source. There is only one scholarly book source that I see and I can't check to see what it is or what kind of content is on it.

Sources and references evaluation
I would definitely add more sources and add in more information and quotes from the sources listed.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There are grammar and spelling issues that need to be corrected. I would try to make the information flow a little better, but it is definitely on a good track for a draft!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, mentioned above.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat. The sections are outlined, but more information needs to be added under each section.

Organization evaluation
It is organized in a good order!

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?

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? I would add more than what is listed.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It doesn't include as much information as needed to fully back-up the story.
 * 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 the pattern and section headings are good. You can always find more information to list if needed, whether it is on Whitman, history, the story itself, critic reviews, etc.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? There are a few words that link to other articles within the background, but I would add more in the other sections too.

New Article Evaluation
Sources are huge for Wikipedia to publish something so I would work hard to link words to other articles and try to include more sources in your article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It is getting there!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? You give good background info and relevant information to the story
 * How can the content added be improved? I've already said it multiple times but just add more information and more sources to help expand your writing.

Overall evaluation
Good job! Can't wait to see it when it's published (hopefully)!