User:Wkres/Back and Forth (film)/Jsprunger 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

 * Wkres
 * : User:Wkres/Back and Forth (film)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Not yet but I imagine that'll happen. If not, I think the original lead already had alot of the information that would be in a good lead so there might not be much for Wkres to add in the lead.
 * Yes. The lead does concisely and accurately describe the topic of the paper in a single sentence.
 * No?
 * The lead includes only information that is in the article.
 * The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead is really good. Wkres hasn't done too much different with it but that makes sense within the scope of his work so far.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * The added content is relevant to the topic. Wkres adds information on what is in the film, information about its production and its reception.
 * Yes it seems to be. There is nothing in this that seems to be out of date information or information that would at some point become out of date.
 * As of this writing, there is not any information in the production section but I will make changes as Wkres adds more.

Content evaluation
I think Wkres's content is a nice addition. I think when the production and reception information are finished it will be a very useful Wikipedia article.

Edit 5/6: I see Wkres added some content on the production. I would suggest that if he is going to use that quote as is that he block quote it as per Wikipedia style guides or rewrite that information in his own words. That might be his intent already but I thought this should be mentioned.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * The content added is neutral.
 * there is no visible bias in this article.
 * There aren't any overrepresented, or underrepresented points.
 * The content doesn't attempt to persuade the reader at all.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think Wkres has a really great use of tone in this article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Yes. Wkres has packed up the new content with secondary sources of information.
 * Somewhat? I know that Wkres is trying to use open access resources as much as possible. There might be available literature that isn't open access that isn't reflected in his sources, however.
 * They are. One of them is from 2019 so Wkres seems to be placing an emphasis on them being up to date.
 * The links on his page currently don't work. When they do I will follow up on this question.

Sources and references evaluation
I think Wkres has some good sources for his article. There is some work left to do on making them link to the pages but otherwise I think he has done well. While I understand and applaud his decision to use open resources as much as possible, I might suggest that there are other resources that don't fit within that scope that might also be very useful to him.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * The content is well written and easy to read. Currently the content section is started off with a large quote which would be my only concern. It just doesn't seem to fit with how I've seen wikipedia articles before.
 * There are no visible grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The content is well organized in terms of layout and outline.

Organization evaluation
I think Wkres has organized his article well. I might not start off content with the quote but that is more of a personal suggestion and not really based in anything wikipedia related.

Images and Media - Wkres has not added images yet. If he does I will update this
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?

For New Articles Only - This is not a new article
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:


 * I definitely think the article is much more complete than the stub Wkres started out with.
 * I think Wkres has added depth in terms of what has been added about the films content and its reception.
 * I think Wkres intends to add in terms of production information and more about the reception. I think those steps will aid a lot in this article being much closer to completion.

Overall evaluation
I think this article is really strong. I think Wkres has a really good start and I think while there is room for him to grow, I know that doing that is within his intent. Overall I think it's a great start and I'm excited to see it continue towards the final product.