User:Wilkens Exavier/Artificial intelligence in video games/Araceli.magana Peer Review

General info

 * User: Wilkens Exavier
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Wilkens Exavier/Artificial intelligence in video games

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and clearly explains what will be discussed throughout the article. Although the article does not have different sections, many points are discussed in the beginning paragraph that are discussed later on in the article.

Content evaluation
All the content that is added relates to the main concept. Most, if not all of the sources are up to date with the content and I couldn't find anything that the author wrote that seemed to be off topic. Although there is room for more content to be discussed.

Tone and balance evaluation
The author of the article takes on a neutral tone throughout without being biased. Although more viewpoints could be embellished upon, the tone remains informative.

Sources and references evaluation
There are quite a few amount of sources that the author references. Although all the links work and are incorporated well within the article, there are some sources that may not be too reliable. Though all of the sources are up to date and relate to the content of the article.

Organization evaluation
The article is easy to read with few grammatical errors throughout. The article also seems to be well organized but, it is not broken into different sections. However, this may be because there is not enough content to be able to divide the content into subsections.

Images and media evaluation
There are no images added, though it is still in early development.

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
There are quite a few sources cited, however, there could be more sources added to help the author provide more information and strengthen the credibility of the article. Since the article is in its early stages of development, there are not many organizational features such as infoboxes or section headings to make the article clearer.

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
The content added helps to give more of an explanation and background to how AI is capable of handling tasks that it is programmed to do. To improve the article, I suggest maybe adding more content in terms of how AI has progressed over the years in video games.