User:Aad29/NASDAQ/Alr5845 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? aad29
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: NASDAQ and Talk:NASDAQ

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been updated to reflect new content added by the user.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The current lead has an introduction that relates to the NASDAQ. The introduction is very vague and does not include most of the information that pertains to the NASDAQ.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the sections included in the article are not included into the introduction.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead only includes information that deals with the basic definition and explanation of the Nasdaq.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise. Almost to the point that there is information missing from the lead. I think this could be expanded by a great deal to encompass the entire article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * There is no content added to the current article, but the content in the article relates to trading and
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The current content is not up to date. The graphs are from 2005 and are not an accurate representation of the current stocks within the NASDAQ.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The trading schedule section is not as relevant as other possible sections within the article. Bernard Madoff should be mentioned more in the article. He is an important factor for starting the index fund.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I think it represents the nasdaq well enough. But, I think that there are many gaps within the article. I think that there is a lot of information that could be added about what stocks are in the fund, how are they chosen, how are they weighted, how do they compare to other index funds?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * For the most part I think the current content is very neutral. It represents the Nasdaq in an unbiased form.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * From my review, I do not see anything that would be considered biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The sections of the article are not balanced. I think that the sections at the bottom should be revised and have more information that related to the Nasdaq.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There is no position taken in the article to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There is no new content added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The current sources reflect all available literature from the time. I think that there's more information out there now about the nasdaq that can be found.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The current sources are from the 2010-2017. These are current, but the Nasdaq changes stocks every so often, so this might need to be updated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there is many authors and sources for a diverse amount of information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links 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?
 * The current article has issues with capitalization of NASDAQ or Nasdaq.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Once again, no content was added so I can not answer this section.

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?

Once again, no content was added so I can not answer this section. But, the current graphs should be updated.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Once again, no content was added so I can not answer this section.