User:Aajoseph12/Online disinhibition effect/Kzw53 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? (provide username)
 * Peer review of Aajoseph12's article.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Aajoseph12/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead looks like it has been updated to reflect the new content added by the peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not include description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There does not seem to be any information that is missing, or any 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?
 * No, the article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, or address any historically underrepresented populations of topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims, that appear heavily biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not 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?
 * Yes, the new content is backed up by reliable secondary source information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources seem to reflect the literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current, although there is only one that is actually used within their in-text citations.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. No, they do not include historically marginalized individuals where possible.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the content is well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content added does not 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?
 * Yes, the content added is well-organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Again, there are no images.

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, the content added seems to improve the overall quality of the article, and helps it come across as more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The classifications section is very strong for helping show the importance of cyberspace. It also helps how there are a lot of intext citations, and links to other articles within the text.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content could be added to or improved by adding some images and using more of the resources in the in-text citations.