User:YouDubStudent/Fate: The Cursed King/Grizzbuzz 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) YouDubStudent
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:YouDubStudent/Fate: The Cursed King

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Lead has been turned into a section called "General Information"
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Need to get a few sentences deep before you get a good grasp of what the game actually is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really a breakdown of the sections more just an overview of what the game is.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, these include ratings and critic notes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Well written, not any errors that I can tell.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Looks to be
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Pictures of the game would be helpful.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope clear of those.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not really any differing view points here
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Sources seem credible enough.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * You could possible add an other source or two to verify more about the plot. Just maybe a source that lays out a similar story to the one you described.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yep
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Very well written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No but there are what look like notes about adding pictures and citations in a few places that need to be fulfilled and then taken out.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I would recommend putting the "Plot" Section before the system requirements as that is likely to be a section of major interest to the reader but it is buried down at the bottom right now.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No but definitely could use them.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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?
 * way more complete that was an amazing improvement on the original.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Lots of detail added about the game and associated topics.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * One thing you might consider is to add more internal link to other articles that exist within Wikipedia that are brought up in your article.

Overall evaluation
Overall ver well done, you added a lot of breadth and depth to this article. I think you should add a proper Lead because as of right now that general info section is serving as it but is kinda makes the article look weird. I would put that section so that it appears above the contents box and without a heading but I think the contents of that section are sufficient to be your lead. Again if you can add any pictures that would be something that would help visualize the game a bit more and be very helpful to the reader. But overall very nice job.