User:S.thompson68724/Draft: Hamlet on the Holodeck/Jayla P 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Draft:Hamlet on the Holodeck

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? Nice introductory sentence good description of topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead includes concepts ,but not key chapters or chapter explanations.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise Lead

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Good up to date content. Content is organized well, and good choice of key concepts to discuss.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Good Neutral tone, wish it was more positive reviews in reception.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Some sections have more content then others, and offer more insight on concepts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Some sentences lack citations.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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? Good back up sources. Citations are organized correctly.
 * Are the sources current? Yes oldest source was from 2017
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Lots of easy to read neutral sentences, good job of explaining concepts.
 * 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? Page is separated in sections, with headers.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Picture of book enhances wiki page.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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? Article has 2-3 more sources and is notable, total of 9 sources in all.
 * 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? Article does contain section headings, References and Works cited,
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?Article may be hard to discover.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the content is neutral and adds insight to the the authors concepts.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Content strengths include, engagement, and tone I like the content in Part one.
 * How can the content added be improved? Balance in different sections.