User talk:CharlesKinkade/DayZ (video game)

Johannah's Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info CharlesKinkade (There isn't one yet: he hasn't started writing) Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, it hasn't been updated.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation: The lead is simple and concise and includes the major features of the topic but fails to introduce the main sections of the article like gameplay. I feel like there should be key information from these sections be introduced in the lead. (There is some attempt but I feel like there could be more). Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Nothing added but I feel like it will

Is the content added up-to-date? Nothing added but I feel like it will

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Charles in the talk page made some excellent points.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, that has nothing to do with the topic though.

Content evaluation: I think Charles made a good point in where he saw that the content needed to be changed: "As I was looking at this article I realize that it seems to leave out a lot about things that happened past 2018 including not even mentioning the games major Livonia Dlc. I plan to add sections talking about Livonia as well as go into detail on other things such as the controversy about the standalone release not including elements of the mod as well as other major topics such as the game gaining popularity due to streamers and youtubers" (CharlesKinkade).

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

Does the content added to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No content added

Tone and balance evaluation; Everything seems to be informative and without bias

Sources and References:

Guiding questions:

Is all-new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, Charles found out that they are mainly first-hand accounts

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

Are the sources current? Yes

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation: There are a good number of sources but there need to be more reliable ones as the ones presented in the article can be very biased.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.

Does the content add to have any grammatical or spelling errors? Diction could be better.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation: I praise that this article is really simplistic. That may be because of the lack of information but I quite enjoy it because it's concise and easy to understand though I think the word choice in some areas could be better.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, not really.

Are images well-captioned? No.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Images and media evaluation: I think there could be more images of use, especially since it is a game and you can display and capture the gameplay or game development. The article only has one image (basically of nothing) besides the title image. The caption of that picture is a little wordy. Overall, this section of the article needs to be developed.

Overall impressions:

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: no additions have been added

What are the strengths of the content added?: no additions have been added

How can the content added be improved? add to it

Overall evaluation: Though there is no additions to the article at this time, I think Charles has a good idea demonstrated by his ideas on the Talk Page. He wants to add more information involving Livonia, game controversy, and history prior to 2018 (CharlesKinkade). Though I would recommend him to clean up a few sections that already exist. The lead could flow a little better as well as fixing the diction. The lead doesn't really introduce the main sections and he'll have to edit the lead anyway if he plans on adding new information. Either way, good start. You just need to start writing (don't worry I do too!). I also recommend fixing any problems I mentioned in my previous evaluations of the sections above like the images and media, and the lead.