User:TheWookieWikster/The Lay of the Children of Húrin/Rebeccalj30 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): 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:
This article doesn't seem to have a designated lead section that introduces it. I think it'd be super beneficial to add this and have that bit of introduction.

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:
The content seems well-researched and relevant to the topic. I think some pieces, like the central themes part, could be expanded upon, but this is a draft so that's totally okay. I'd also love to see a section that mentions the plot so that readers know what happens in the story.

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:
The content seems to be fairly neutral, but as I mentioned I'd love to see more information about the story itself rather than just things about it. The content that is presented does not seem biased.

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:
The links do work and seem to be up to date. I'd love to see a section added for "References" to indicate the sources (I had to go back and look how to do this so a quick tutorial if you forgot is if you go to edit and above the citations type "= References =" it will add a header there!) Also I saw your comment about not knowing how to make things link to other articles and all you have to do is put double brackets around the word  then it will create a link!

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:
The content is well-written, but it's not super well-organized. I think a big reason for this is the lack of sections which any Wikipedia users more or less expects. The content is really there though so I think maybe if you look at another article that's similar to yours and model it after that (not copying, but just seeing how similar articles are organized) it could be super helpful. Here is one: The Hobbit. Obviously The Hobbit is super well-known and will be way longer than yours, but it gives a good sense of organization! That's just an example though!

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:
There are no images, but I'd love to see one of the cover of the piece (if there's one that adheres to the regulations) or something pertaining to it. Visuals are always nice to have!

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?

New Article Evaluation:
N/A

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?

Overall evaluation:
Overall, the content here is really well-done! I just think if you added some more organization, the article would flow better and work better! Great job so far!