User:Schwammy1/Spoiler (media)/Flamenquera Peer Review

General info
Schwammy1
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Schwammy1/Spoiler (media)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Spoiler (media)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead has been updated. However, the introductory sentence remains the same as the one in the current version of the article. The lead does set up the rest of the article.

The content pertains to the idea of what a spoiler is. The content added is relatively up-to-date as all their references do not stretch farther than fifteen years back. They could try to add some more recent sources, such as ones from within the last five years. The content added does seem to contribute to the overall article. The article does not deal with matter included in Wikipedia's equity gaps.

The content added has a neutral tone. They do a great job of addressing various opinions and viewpoints related to the subject. There is not an attempt to persuade the reader of anything present here.

They do include some of the references needed. However, they are missing a few. For example, until the Books subheading the reference does not have the link tied to it. There are other sections missing references altogether, such as the Short Stories subheading and the third paragraph under Positive Effects, among others. The sources are thorough, though, as the information given is detailed. While the sources arguably cannot be considered old, there may be more current information available on the subject. Their references section needs work, even just in the formatting. The numerical ordering is messed up. Only three of their references have links. While the links checked do work, some of their references show that only the abstracts are available at no cost. Unless they are planning on paying for the research provided by these links, they should add more references they have to complement the amount of information at their disposal. There is not a great deal of diversity among the authors included.

The content is well-written and easy to read. It lacks spelling or grammatical errors. The draft's paragraph breakup is cohesive and sensical.

They did not add images or media yet.

The content added undoubtedly furthers the article's progress towards becoming a well-rounded article. They added a lot of pertinent information. The strength of the content is their display of non-biased information. The content added can be improved through a better selection of sources or simply updating their references section and citations throughout.