User:Sjburton18/Something Like a War/Ecassel 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: User:Sjburton18/Something Like a War

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, there is much more information than what was presented in the original article.
 * 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? No, but there is a section of major themes further in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A little too detailed, I think some of the information could be put into a separate section on the culture that created the problems in the movie, etc.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it provides new information regarding the producer and the major themes of the film.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
9/10

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It does feel bias towards the side that the movie is presenting, but I think it's okay because it is generally just explaining the movies major points
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sort of, but only because of the information that was provided through the movie

Tone and balance evaluation
9/10

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
9/10

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
9/10

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * 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
-

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? Yes and no, I think the overall introduction could be worked on a little more through breaking up the information into specific categories
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
27/30