User:NoahMullens/Slave Play/Colindresj 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? (provide username) NoahMullens
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Slave Play

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead section should be updated to include the newly added plot and characters sections of your article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * 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? Some of the information is in the history and reception portion, but this should be double-checked.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

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? Yes, but Noah indicated what he plans to do to finish his article.

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; Noah references the Play throughout the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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? Noah's content is well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes; I appreciate that Noah broke the play into acts.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Noah's additions to the page have made the article more exhaustive and useful, so I believe that the overall quality of the article has improved.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added are the depth of the plot section and the easy, quick read nature of the character list.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would add more details to the critical section portion of the article and update the lead section of the page.