User:Roshnispatel/The Black Vampyre (short story)/RavenaWolf 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? Roshnipatel
 * 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? -- Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -- Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -- Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -- No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? -- Pretty concise

Lead evaluation

 * Overall, it's a pretty good start.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation

 * There's a lot of content here, and that's a good thing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? -- Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -- Not that I can see
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -- No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -- Nope

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Pretty good, guys.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation

 * Good job!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -- Yep
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -- I'd probably give it a once over, but I don't see anything personally.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -- Yep

Organization evaluation

 * Good

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? -- Not necessarily enhance, but it's nice to have it.
 * Are images well-captioned? -- Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? -- I suppose
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? -- Yes

Images and media evaluation

 * Good on ya, mates

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

New Article Evaluation

 * Good

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? -- Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? -- Good layout, balanced tone, and overall good research
 * How can the content added be improved? -- I can't think of anything.

Overall evaluation

 * Good article. It's a very balanced article with all the information right at your fingertips.