User:Amdoubleu/Baby Be-Bop/Kerrymonique 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? (Amdoubleu)
• Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Amdoubleu/Baby Be-Bop/Kerrymonique Peer Review

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by the author.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • If a reader should find this page, I believe the lead is concise enough for them to understand that Baby Be-Bop is another book developed in the series of adventures.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The table of contents could be expanded upon however it is enough for the reader to scroll through and get to the important sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The lead includes the necessary information.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is concise

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The articles content is relevant to the authors description of the story.
• Is the content added up-to-date? The content does seem up to date
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do see some sections that could be expanded upon. The first sentence in the plot where Dirk McDonald is introduced. I think the author could add more information on Dirks background. The rest of the plot looks good!

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The article seems neutral and unbiased about the character and his life.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • In the plot it looks like the author gave his opinion on Dirk not being happy because he had a secret. That could appear to the reader as being a little bias. I'm not sure that it is completely bias though
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The view points are not over or underrepresented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • When reading this article I am presented with more facts rather than opinions

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • The sources are all reliable
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources reflect what the author is presenting about the books story line
• Are the sources current?
  • Most of the sources are retrieved recently 2020 an up to date. There are only two dates that are from 2009.
• Check a few links. Do they work? All the links work well

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clearly written and touches on many different dimensions such as; challenges the book had with publishing
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find any grammatical spelling errors and paragraphs seem to flow.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is organized well and the sections are in the right areas on the page.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has a nice picture of the books cover. It is colorful and pops out at the viewer
• Are images well-captioned? The images are well-captioned and bolded appropriately
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I'm not sure because when I clicked on the picture it states that it is believed to belong to the publisher or the cover artist.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The image is appealing and colorful

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? The article is rated a C which is considered a low standard. So, I believe it meets the standard, however for the purpose of this assignment it meets the purpose of evaluation.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I believe the author did a thorough job finding sources.
• 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? The article flows well, has neutrality and is balance but there is room for improvement.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The writer did a good job linking words to other articles.
• New Article Evaluation

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content that was added made a big improvement from the older version. As mentioned more content should be added, pictures and headings.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The author made the article a lot more interesting by going deep into the history of the lawsuit, issues with publishing, and the history of the books first public display.
• How can the content added be improved? I would like to see a few more pictures (the imaginary settings) expand more on the plot and add some reviews as a link. Otherwise the article's picture is eye catching and the new improvements look great!