User:Tpourci1/Action film/Aellengray 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? Tpourci1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Action film

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, we are only editing in our sandboxes so I am unable to see any new content. There is a sizeable amount of content in the lead that does not have any citations. Only 3 citations are present.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead offers a great definition of what action film is. I would have a general understanding of the topic after reading this introduction.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not all of the article's sections are addressed in the lead, I would expand on this section slightly.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There is a sentence about a screenwriter, Eric R. Williams, which does not belong in the introduction and is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and to the point but could use the additional information on what else the article will discuss.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Everything listed in the article is relevant and the inclusion of actors and directors is a nice touch.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is current and relevant. Any older material pertains to history from many years ago which is understandable. You could add some newer movies in the examples sections.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is an additional section on Hong Kong action cinema which is not cited at all and seems a bit redundant after having talked about it in the history section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No, this article is not associated with equity gaps. Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? There is a brief section on women characters and actors that could be expanded on. There is limited citing here and limited history on the subject. I imagine women were not always given the starring role and had to work hard to earn that spotlight.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content throughout the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This sentence: "By the end of the 1980s, the influence of the successful action film could be felt in almost every genre", at the end of the 1980s section comes off as an opinion based statement.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are a few areas that raise questions for me. In the actors section, what makes the named actors notable? Did they win any awards or play exceptionally well?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content of the article is not persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I am unable to see new content, however the existing content is mostly backed up to a source. The sections that I mentioned previously are the biggest areas without any credit given.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources reflect available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current however more current movies and actors could be added as examples.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the article represents a diverse spectrum of authors. The one clear place needing expansion is the women's section.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links are active and in working order.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is clear and easy to read. The directors section is a bit list-like in naming off a lot of different movies. It could use a break in the list and be developed a bit further.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the action-horror section, the first sentence could use rewording.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content of the article is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? This article contains one image, that of a clapperboard, which is a common tool used in movie production.
 * Are images well-captioned? The image does not include a caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, this image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the image is visually appealing.