User:Soudeaforbes/New weird/Amdoubleu 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? Soudeaforbes
• Link to draft you're reviewing: New Weird

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the Lead includes new information with the appropriate citations.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the Lead introduces the articles topic in a clear and concise fashion.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything covered in the Lead is touched on in the rest of the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and does not include any unnecessary information.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, Soudeaforbes has included information that better fleshes out the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the added information supports readers' understanding of the topic.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is unbiased.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, everything is discussed evenly.
• 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? Yes, the sources added by Soudeaforbes come from reliable sources in the industry.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? While the added sources provide relevant information on the topic, a quick search brought other results back that could also improve the article.
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Each link except for "Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy:Overviews" works.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, but there may be other quotes that better describe the genre to readers.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I noticed.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content is well-organized. However, I would move the Definition above Influences.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images on this article.
• 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? Yes, I believe that Soudeaforbes' additions have improved the article.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Her bibliography provides additional information and resources that allow readers to better understand this genre. The amount of links to other related topics are also useful.
• How can the content added be improved? Adding more information, examples, and sources, as well as ensuring that all links in the bibliography function properly.

Overall evaluation

Overall, Soudeaforbes' updates to this article have improved its ability to inform readers about this genre. While the article could benefit from a bit more information and slight tweaking, it is overall very informative.