User:TheWookieWikster/The Lay of the Children of Húrin/LaineNichols 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?: TheWookieWikster
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:TheWookieWikster/The Lay of the Children of Húrin

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Only part of the article is present, so I can't evaluate this. As of right now, there is no lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
I'm not sure if the content is relevant. The section title is "Reception" but there is no talk about how people received the work (criticism, praise, etc.). There is a lot of talk about the importance of names, but it almost seems like content that would better fit a research paper than an encyclopedia article. Maybe it'll make more sense after it's edited though!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Only one person's reception (Stephanie Ricker) seems to be mentioned. Consider replacing some of the theoretical content with other people's reception of the Lay to get a wide-view of society's reception.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
Many cites are missing, but they are labeled to be fixed later. I noticed you said you didn't know how to make things clickable. That particular article isn't a Wikipedia page, but if it was, all you have to do in Visual Editor mode is type [[. When you do that, it'll bring up a dialogue box and you can search for the article you want to link. Once you pick it and hit Insert, it will place that word. Then you can edit that word, and the link will still work. For instance, if you wanted to link J.R.R. Tolkien, but only wanted to use the word "Tolkien," you could delete the J.R.R. part after linking, and it will still go where you wanted. (=

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Right now, this section is confusing to read. I was having a hard idea figuring out what the paragraphs were getting out. When you edit, consider structuring with clear topic sentences and backing that topic up with information from sources throughout your paragraph.

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?

Images and media evaluation
I like the info box!

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?