User:Sruvs/Fiction theory/Kiarapech Peer Review

General info
Sruvs
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User :Sruvs/Fiction_theory?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N/A

Lead
The lead is good. It informs the reader of the general premise of the topic and also has some information that may incite a reader to read further. The introductory sentence is clear and concise. It seems like a perfect description to appear linked in another article. I saw brief introductions to a couple sections, but not all of them. The lead is concise, but I think it can be even shorter. The last three lines feel less introductory than I would expect.

Content
The content added is relevant to the topic. It describes what fiction theory is and its components, along with some viewpoints about the topic. The content is very up to date, listing the social media tag of BookTok. The content combines historical ideas regarding the topic with modern ideas, which makes it very informative and easy to read. It seems like lots of the content involves male ideas regarding the topic. Since there's a lot of first's of the topic mentioned, it might be worth mentioning notable women contributors.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral. I liked your use of specific names comments and thoughts on the topic. It was a real "they say" and information dump, which is what an article is supposed to be. I loved your use of various viewpoints and how it stayed neutral. Some sections with specific people contributing big ideas seemed unbalanced and did not have opposing viewpoints (unless I missed the connections between them). Regardless, the tone makes it clear that the article is not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Sources and References
The sources come from a wide range of dates, which I think is appropriate given that this is not a new idea. It's an idea that has developed through time and that is reflected through your source usage. The links I tried worked. Most of the sources used were peer-reviewed journals and it does not really get better than that.

Organization
The organization of the page is really good. Although the specific heading formatting confused me. I am not sure if you realize this but the title Fiction theory already appears on the page so it is not needed as a heading. Given that, I assume the sub-headings will change accordingly.

Images and Media
Honestly, it feels right to have that image at the top of the article, but it is kind of confusing. I recommend looking for a picture of someone you talk about closer to the beginning of the article because his information is pretty far from his image. I am not sure how else you would incorporate non-portrait images on the article though.

New article
The topic is very notable. I am surprised this article did not exist. There are many sources listed and I am sure a lot more information exists. I am not worried about this topic having a lack of sources. The formatting, besides the heading/sub-heading misunderstandings, is really good and resembles existing articles.

Overall impressions
This is a really informative article! It is really good and I know it will become substantially better. Even at the first draft stage, it seems like a complete article. The information is very detailed and flows nicely. However, contrasting viewpoints are missing and would make this article better. Great job!