User:Nicolerewis/The Half-Breed (short story)/Dcwinchester 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? Nocolerewis/The Half-Breed
 * 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? Yes, but it puts a little too much plot summary in it.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes except for the background research.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It discusses half-breeds, but the rest of the text doesn't seem to discuss what that is or the history behind that word much after.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overly detailed in regard to the plot. Maybe cut down the plot summary.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant, but still needs more information. The character list could be fleshed out, with each character having a little bit of explanation as to their role in the story. The style heading either needs information or should be cut. I would stray away from writing about the style of this text, as it is older and doesn't have much information to find.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is as up to date as it can be, but the sources are older (because there isn't much information available for this text)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? They have a style heading but don't have any information inside it. The character heading needs to be fleshed out more. Also, I would add some introduction information to the beginning of the page.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral, but it reads like a persuasive essay. It seems like the page is trying to argue or persuade the reader, especially the lead heading. Wording like "proven in paragraphs" and "Surprisingly" make the text seem less neutral, and I would advice rewording them.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * "The main characters get along until a thief is caught and a white man is injured. This reveals some possible hidden agendas from a few of the characters, along with some underlying suspicions from the townsfolk. There is a character of "mixed-blood", who is described as the hunchback of the town, who is half white and half Native American. He does not seem to be respected by the people of the town, proven in the first few paragraphs as small school children pick on him during recess as he makes his way to deliver news for a fellow neighbor. Surprisingly this does not set the tone for the story, things will not get much darker until a hunting trip takes a dangerous turn." - I would avoid saying "white man," "hidden agendas," "underlying," "does not seem to be," "proven," and "Surprisingly." These words add in a level of bias, or make the wording less neutral. If you can find a source that says this, it would work much better.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There don't seem to be any viewpoints that are over or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I don't think the intent is to persuade, but the wording does seem to try and argue or persuade the reader, specifically "proven."

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The lead paragraph could use more citations. The background paragraph has a good bit of sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I think the sources are as detailed as possible on this text, given that the text doesn't have much information out there discussing it.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are older, but that's because the text is obscure today. The text could use some modern sources that range outside of the 1800's. Also, I don't know if you have to cite the Wikipedia article you cited.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is easy to read, aside from the plot summary. The present tense of the writing makes it a little awkward to read, and some grammatical errors stick out.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content does have grammatical errors. The plot summary specifically needs a little work. Boddo is uncapitalized at the beginning and then capitalized at the end.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is pretty well-organized. I would go and add lines between categories though.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images

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? The article could use one or two more sources outside of the subject matter. The page already has one on the author, one on mixed blood, and one on war. But I think one or two more sources on the war and mixed blood could benefit the text.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I think the sources are as exhaustive as it can be. Maybe get a few sources outside of the text and focus a little more on the war behind the text.
 * 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? The article does, but it needs lines between categories and a little introduction at the top.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article seems more detailed and fleshed out.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths lie in the background research.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add lines between categories, fix grammatical errors in the plot, flesh out the characters page, take out the style heading, maybe add in themes, add a bit of introduction information, and flesh out background information.