User:Tb3m555/Six Four/Aumaru 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? Tb3m555 and Emaaelrayah
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tb3m555/Six Four

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * 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? Yes, for most sections but not all. There is no mention of themes or reception in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The plot summary in the lead may be too detailed.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead does a good job at introducing Six Four. It accomplishes its purpose as a brief introduction to multiple factors involved with the book. Two things that can be done to improve the article are making the plot summary more concise and briefly mentioning the themes and critical reception of the novel.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Content evaluation
The content of the article is on par with that of more developed Wikipedia pages on novels. If the authors of the article want to go further, they could add a section on the background of the book that details any inspirations or experiences the author had that affected his writing.

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? The plot summary and major characters sections are very long compared to other parts of the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this article is very neutral. However, the balance of the amount of content is off; the plot summary and character list are very detailed. If the character list is shortened to include only major characters and superfluous details are taken out of the summary, the balance can be restored.

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
The references in the article are reliable and come from a variety of sources. There is also a good amount of sources cited.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The plot summary needs to be more concise.
 * 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
Overall, the article's content is well written. The plot summary is very detail oriented, which makes it more difficult to read.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, a single picture of the book cover.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Wikipedia says that the copyright status of the picture is unknown.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Images and media evaluation
The picture used is good, but make sure that it adheres to copyright laws.

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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Nine sources coming from multiple different outlets form the references list. It is an accurate representation of the available literature on Six Four.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation
The sources used in the article are adequate in both number and reliability. The article has hyperlinks placed where they would be useful. The organization pattern of the article is just like that of another Wikipedia article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? There article is more complete because there was no article on Six Four before the authors created it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content of the article does not just cover the basic content of the novel, but also the events leading up to the publishing of the novel and the reception of the novel after it was published.
 * How can the content added be improved? The plot summary and the character list should be shortened.

Overall evaluation
The major issues I have with the article is the length of the plot summary and the character list. These two things should be further edited for brevity. Otherwise, the article reads just like a Wikipedia article.