User:Sruvs/Fiction theory/Sienna Pearson Peer Review

General info
Sruvs (Sofia Ruvalcaba)
 * 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):Fiction theory

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The lead of the article provides a clear introduction to the topic, stating that fiction theory applies possible world theory to literature. It mentions key concepts like parasocial interaction and fictionalism, outlining the main focus of the theory. However, the lead could be improved by offering a broader summary of the article's content. Including brief references to the major sections, such as fundamentals, related theories, and key contributors, would give readers a more comprehensive overview.

Content
The content in the fiction theory article is relevant to the topic, covering key aspects like the fundamentals of fiction theory, psychological perspectives, and related theories. It explores the various ways fiction interacts with reality, drawing on notable theorists and their contributions. The article appears up-to-date, discussing current trends like the impact of TikTok's #BookTok movement. While the article references several key theorists, it could benefit from a more diverse range of perspectives, focusing on historically underrepresented populations and their contributions to fiction theory (if there are any).

Tone and balance
The overall tone of the article is neutral, presenting information without apparent bias. It outlines various viewpoints within fiction theory, offering a balanced approach. However, some sections could benefit from a more objective tone. The mention of heavy criticism regarding parasocial interactions could be reworded to avoid sounding too judgmental or dismissive of opposing views. The article doesn't seem to persuade the reader in favor of any particular position, but there's a focus on certain theorists that could be broadened to include other perspectives which would help achieve a more balanced narrative.

Sources and references
The fifteen sources used in the article appear reliable and reflect secondary sources relevant to fiction theory. However, many of the sections could benefit from additional references, or just citing the source more often, to strengthen the article's credibility and ensure all claims are backed by sources. Regarding diversity among authors, there is room for improvement. The article could include works by a broader range of authors, especially from historically marginalized groups.

Organization
The content in the article is well-written. The structure of the article is logical, with sections breaking down different aspects of fiction theory. If wanted, the transitions between sections could be improved to create a smoother flow. While the section headings reflect the major points of the topic, they could be more descriptive, allowing readers to understand the article's structure at a glance.

Images and media
The article does include one image of the French literary critic Roland Barthes. It adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. It is a visually appealing layout currently, but I think it would make more sense to have the image well-integrated into the text so it is alongside where he is mentioned in the test instead of next to the lead section. Adding additional images, such as photographs of key theorists or diagrams illustrating concepts within fiction theory, would enhance understanding and provide visual interest.

Overall impressions
The content added to the article has improved its overall quality, and added many more citations and sources, increasing reliability. The strengths include comprehensive coverage of fundamental ideas and the integration of psychological perspectives. The article provides valuable insights into key theorists and their contributions, making the topic more accessible to readers. The biggest area for improvement would be finding a way to incorporate historically underrepresented voices within fiction theory. Overall, it was a well written article that I learned a lot from.