User:Tami Marie/Impossible Dreams/Brebre143 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): Tami Marie
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Impossible Dreams

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: Yes, it discusses where this short story was published.
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? For the most part. There is a section that is talking about parallel universes in other movies.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is not much information that goes into detail about the short story and information around themes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is under-representation in detail of the story. There is not much information that the article gives the reader.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some of it is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read.
 * 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? There is not a lot of detail that breaks down the story.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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?
 * 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? I think the article could use more work as far as putting more information on it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The reader is given the basis of what the story is about and the awards that the short story has is included.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add citations to all of your information that you've found. Some of the links for the external resources do not work.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article could use some work, but I think it is headed in the right direction. It just needs some depth about the short story as in themes and symbols, and it should be good to go.