User talk:Renee. Beaumont/Incubus/Destructo66 Peer Review

The lead for this article is good because it is short and tells the reader exactly what Incubus is without being too complicated. The first sentence describes the topic well. There is a content box that lists the covered areas on the article directly under the first paragraph.

The content is up to date and related to the topic. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

The content seemed to come from a neutral position without any bias. The three sections of the article have roughly the same amount of detail and information in them. The content added does not try to persuade the readers in one way or another. It simply states what Incubus is and other facts about him.

Some of the cites did not have links attached to the information. Examples are cites number 26 and number 27 under "Notes." The cited information still works but to make it easier on the reader, adding links would be best. The sources are written by a wide range of authors. The links in the body of the article work. There are a few recent sources about Incubus, but most sources are older than 1999. I found a book that contains additional information about Incubus and that is not included in the source list. Adler, Shelley, and Shelley R. Adler. Sleep Paralysis : Night-Mares, Nocebos, and the Mind-Body Connection, Rutgers University Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/yavapai-ebooks/detail.action?docID=862760.

Some content is difficult to read due to the old and strange names. But other than that the article is easy to read and understand. I have not found any spelling or grammatical errors in the work added. The content is organized well and its information is easy to find.

Only one image is on the Incubus article. It contains a caption and it helps the reader understand what it was believed to look like. The picture is located in a convenient spot at the top left of the page.

The new content added helps only with grammar and understanding, rather than expanding the knowledge about the topic. The strengths of the content added are that the reader has an easier time of understand the information. The content added can be improved by having an additional source backing it up. Destructo66 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)