User:Professortitan/The Guest (short story)/Rebeccalj30 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): 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:
I'm unsure how to tell what was already there and what was added (my bad I'm literally the worst with technology) but the lead section is very nicely fleshed out. It has a great introductory sentence that leads into the rest of the lead which briefly covers what the subject is and what will be covered in the article. The only thing that I saw that was mentioned in the lead but not the article was the mention of the author's Nobel Prize speech. I didn't see anything about the speech itself, which is highlighted, come up again. Overall, this lead is concise and a great start tot he article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation:
The content is well handled in this article. It is relevant, up-to-date and nothing appears to be missing that I would know to add.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation:
The content here seems to be neutral, not leaning towards taking a position but rather stating facts. I liked that the criticism was mentioned because it provided a contrast to hearing all of what the autjor was thinking and feeling. It makes the article more neutral because it gives all of the information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
I would add a section header that specifically says "References" since the references are currently under the "Film" section. From what I can open and can see, the sources seem to be pretty up to date and do include books which is great! The links I clicked did work so that's nice to be able to get to those!

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:
The content is very well written and organized here. I didn't notice any spelling or grammatical errors, but it never hurts to double check. The only sentence that stood out to me was under the "Major Themes" section when its says "Yet another theme can be extracted from this short story, however: complete neutrality is unattainable." I think this sentence would be better as "Another theme that can be extracted from this short story is that complete neutrality is unattainable." I just felt as though it might flow better! Overall, the article is nicely organized and written!!

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?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation:
The images that are used are great and add nice visuals to the sections they accompany. They are well-captioned, visually appealing and appear to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I would love to see the cover of the story or a picture that has accompanied it in the past if there is one, though!

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?

New Article Evaluation:
N/A

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?

Overall evaluation:
I'm not sure if you plan to add anything else, but I feel as though this is a complete article now! It's very well-done and seems very well-researched. The only things that stuck out to me were not having a "References" section and the sentence that I pointed out earlier. Overall, this is a great article!