User:Roshnispatel/The Black Vampyre (short story)/Bbelliott1875 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?
 * I'm reviewing Group One's page on "The Black Vampyre."
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Roshnispatel/The Black Vampyre (short story)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Right now, I think the Lead could use some significant work. While I could be mistaken, it seems like this was the draft lead that we inserted to make sure everyone could access their articles. With all this new information in the rest of it, I think some things could be injected to fatten this up.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * At this time, I would say no. It's definitely concise, but I think this is to a fault.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Kind of? I was hoping to see the statement that this was a work promoting universal emancipation backed up in some way.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's too concise.

Lead evaluation
This could use some work. However, it should be a fairly easy fix. The group just needs to throw some more information in here.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, everything in the article is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Everything looks up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Generally, the content seems appropriate to the article.

Content evaluation
Content seems to be fine, but it could use some more meat in the shorter sections.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, I would say so.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Possibly? Again, I'm curious about the statement that this is a pro-emancipation work.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It's fairly balanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it's fairly objective.

Tone and balance evaluation
You're doing pretty good here.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Their sources are pretty strong.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * As far as I can tell, yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * They're as current as discourse on this work can be.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
You're doing well here as well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content's tone is appropriate to Wikipedia.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were none that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * They based their organization off another Wikipedia article, so it adheres to the standard style for this type of article.

Organization evaluation
This is pretty solid. Good idea in using a basis.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, but there's only one.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The one that's there is.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * As far as I can tell, yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The one image is in an appropriate spot, but the article could use some more if possible.

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?
 * Absolutely, you're off to a great start with your article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the Analysis section is probably the strongest at this point, but it's also more of its own thing than either the characters or plot summary. However, I'd like to see a little more done with the allusions besides name dropping them.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Right now, I think you could just use some more information. The skeleton is fine.

Overall evaluation
You're off to a great start.