User:Payton Brodie/Nico Walker/RedRunner3 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Payton Brodie


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * There is no work in the sandbox, so I am just reading the edit history of the article that is being revised to see the changes.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Nico Walker Article

Lead:
The lead does not have major updates, but the information is relevant to the information that has been added.

The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic.

The lead could go into more detail about the article's major sections.

The lead does not include information that is not present in the article.

The lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content:
The content added is relevant to the topic.

The content added is up-to-date.

There is no missing content, or content that doesn't belong as far as I can tell.

The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance:
The content added is neutral.

There are no heavily biased claims.

There are not specific viewpoints that are heavily under or overrepresented.

The added content does not try to persuade readers one way or another.

Sources and References:
New content is backed up with reliable references.

The content accurately reflects the source material.

The sources are thorough and current.

The sources are not necessarily written by a diverse selection of authors, but the article itself is over one author and the source includes him talking about his novel, which is a very primary source.

There does not appear to be better sources available, as there is a limited selection of sources on this topic.

The links do work.

Organization:
The content added is well-written and well-placed.

The content added does not have grammatical errors.

The content added is well-organized.

Images and Media:
There is no added media or images.

Overall Impressions:
The content added has improved the quality of the article.

The strengths of the content added is that the added information makes the content more concise, and the added citations make the content more reliable.

There are not many ways that the content added can be improved, I would say the only checkpoint not checked on this peer review is that the lead could potentially go into more detail about the articles major sections. Additionally, while there is a fairly small amount of content added, this is due to the fact that there is a limited selection of sources available on this topic.