User:Ovenly Furnace/User:Ovenly Furnace/Star Wars: Battlefront Classic Collection Controversy/Ecald05 Peer Review

This article does a very good job on giving us context and information about this game and its issues, but it lacks some a bit of backing to the claims about the misconduct of EA Sports. On the other hand it very well organized, using the resources available in the sandbox, the citations and quotations are made flawlessly,s

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not really, it follows the lead to certain extent.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? again no, but it follows the overall same topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does, but it the content hasn´t been expanded.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it does, includes information about an entire different game related to the one of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? its very concise, yet it included useful information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes it very relevant to this topic, as it speaks about the controversy regarding the game.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, the game was launched this year, so the information is fairly recent and up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? there is no side from the game developer itself, and it mainly focuses on the reception
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not really

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes it does not favor sides, just talks about what happened
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? the view points from Aspyr are underrepresented
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, it mainly just talks about the controversy

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes the information is from a secondary reliable source
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) yes the content is accurately reflected from the source described by the writers own words
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?, yes they do, they describe what happened in the controversy
 * Are the sources current? yes they are, they are up to date and relevant
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? they are written by multiple authors from different news covering articles
 * 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.) no, i don´t think there is for this certain topic
 * 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 it is, it is easy to follow
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?, up to the best of my knowledge, no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?, they could be better but it is organized enough

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes, an image to refer what the article is talking about
 * Are images well-captioned?, yes it is
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?' yes it does as it was taken from Wikipedia's own image gallery, not copyright
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes, on the side of the article

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes it does as the controversy was very widespread and talked about, and it was relevant to the topic
 * What are the strengths of the content added? it backs up the claims made in the article by providing strong sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? it could be improved by adding more on aspyrs side of the controversy (if they have released a statement)