User:Sydrike/The Zombie Horror Picture Show/Nickma22 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Sydrike

Link to draft you're reviewing
The Zombie Horror Picture Show
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): The Zombie Horror Picture Show

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

I think the lead is great and provides a good overview of the film. After the first sentence, the subsequent sentences could be moved into their own section about the content of the film although it makes sense to be in the lead for the length the article is now.

Content

The content provided is relevant and up to date. To make it more up to date, you could include some information about the film's reception, legacy, critic/user scores, etc. If you can find more information regarding the film's release, you could include it under a new section "Release" along with the sentence about it placing number one on Billboard's music DVD chart. After looking at pages of other concert films, you could add a personnel section showing who was playing with him and on what instruments. I changed "Track list" to "Set list" based on what I saw from other concert films.

Tone and Balance

The tone of the article is neutral, and no perspective is over represented.

Sources and References

The claims in the article are well sourced, and the links seem to work. I would look for more sources which discuss context and information around the film, maybe from interviews.

Organization

The content is well organized and easy to read. I would suggest breaking up information into individual sections and expanding on them as you continue to build out the article.

Overall Impressions

I think you've done a great job expanding upon what little existed of this article before. I would recommend making individual sections, and looking at comparable articles for inspiration. As it gets expanded I think it can definitely go from stub to start!