User:Oliver Lizzhelm/User:Oliver Lizzhelm/sandbox/Demi12005 Peer Review

General info
(provide username) oliverlizzhelm
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Oliver Lizzhelm/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review Lead

I feel like the over view is very short and sweet and gets to the point. It explains the main thing that the student is talking about. I would ass more detail to some of the sections and make sure that you are not repeating anything that you might have already said. i feel like maybe go a little bit more into depth about what the AI does to help or hurt the game. when you say mahjong related i think you should put a - in between the words.

Article Lead Section

Yes i do feel satisfied and agree that they only put in the importance of what the student was talking about. i feel like the lead is very well written and very easy to follow. the author does not go too in depth but does not shy us of any information that could be left out.

Structure

Yes i feel like the sections would be in order as if you were learning about the game. I feel like the length of each section is about the same some shorter then others but mostly the same length. i feel like the article is not bias and it very neutral and is not missing. In the Shanten and kabe section you say These researchers developed the Block Deficiency Model, an AI that would calculate the shanten of the hand taking (to ) this word should be into not to!

Neutral ContentThe content in the article was not biased at all there was no I believe or anything. I feel like the tone is very neutral and very well written. the article does name the thing that they are talking about. the article does not say any unnamed people. and the article doesn't focus too much on negative or positive information.

Reliable Sources

Yes his sources are very reliable and all within a good time frame. More are connected to the article. All of the sources are spaced out in the article. It is not just about on source they all have a fair amount of information in them.

Reviewer Reflection

Some things I think I could do is make sure I have all my grammar correct and make sure I'm not missing any information. I could also add some details to my paragraphs.