User:Professortitan/The Guest (short story)/LaineNichols 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

 * User: Professortitan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Professortitan/The Guest (short story)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead does mention the historical context, which seems to be the main added content. It includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, it leaves out the Major Themes section about existentialism and the Literary Devices section. The publishing information isn't included in the article, but it doesn't make sense to me to repeat that. I think the lead is well-balanced, although it is missing a couple sections as mentioned above. Overall, I think the lead is pretty good.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Content evaluation
The historical background makes this article make much more sense. As far as up-to-date goes, it's historical information, so there's no need for it to be cutting edge. Nothing appears obviously outdated.

The content is good and informative. However, there are a couple spots where the pronouns used are ambiguous, which makes understanding difficult. For example, "However, by giving it the title of "The Guest," the meaning changes dramatically, as he is merely understood to be a European guest under the watchful gaze of an unseen enemy who views him as an outsider." It seems like "he" here is referring to Daru, but it could also be referring to the Arab since you highlight the title of "The Guest," which does refer to the Arab.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The added content seems mostly neutral. However, there was a couple of times I noted emotional language that seemed to indicate bias/preference.


 * Examples:
 * "extraordinary climax"
 * could be fixed simply by cutting "extraordinary"
 * "infuriating arguments"
 * might make more sense by using "inflammatory" since it sounds more like a description of what happened at the time versus something the writer might be irritated about or something that might have irritated Camus
 * "a full two years after his tragic and untimely death"
 * could be fixed simply by removing the bolded words
 * "This is made worse when viewed through a modern lens in a post-colonial world where a more clearly defined stance would be me more favorable"
 * more favorable to who? Consider explaining more or cutting this sentence

So, there are some words that need to be edited to maintain a neutral viewpoint and the author should read back over to see if they can spot any additional problem areas. Overall, though, the writer does not appear to be biasing the article in any particular direction.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The new content is sourced, but much of the original content (Literary Devices, Major Themes, and the opening paragraph to Historical Context) is minimally cited and seems to be more the result of original research than gathering others' research. The links seem to work. To improve this article, sourcing and/or removing unsourced information should be completed.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Content needs a read-through for small grammar errors, but overall, seems good! There are a couple of ambiguous or confusing pronouns. Also, some spots refer to Algeria or France when they should refer to Algerian or French or vice versa. This might have been carry-over from original content, though. Ex: "he grew up French Algeria as a Pied-Noir, or a black foot--a Frenchman born in the colony to a lower class family." There are some small other errors like this, but this might be holdover from original content. I liked the organization of the content, although I might suggest placing the historical context as the first section after the plot synopsis. I think that would help the rest of the content make more sense.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
I like the new map you included, but I hope the info box from the original comes back. The image is well-captioned and well-laid out.

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?
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?