User:AcademicAlien/Internet Militarization/Dns2018 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)
 * Internet Militarization
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:AcademicAlien/Internet Militarization

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
The Lead needs more content in terms of evaluating the information presented throughout the article and a concise definition over the topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Content evaluation
Content has a nice layout, however seems a bit brief in some sections. For example, the creation of ARPAnet could use some expansion in terms of exactly what the organization created.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Some parts are underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, tone and balance is well and neutral. The writing is not trying to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
All the sources are recent, reliable, and the links work to access the material.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Clear and easy to read, however a bit general and not specific.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The organization of the content is precise and works well for the topic.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the organization of the article is well and concise.

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? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

Images and media evaluation
There wasn't any images or media for this article.

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It accurately represents the subject, however there isn't a list of sources at the end of the article.
 * 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? No it is missing a couple key components of a typical Wiki Article. For example, the heading of each topic could be edited more to make a clear distinction between different topics.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? I'm not sure how to check this?

New Article Evaluation
Article fallas within Wikipedia's Notability, however the layout of the article could use some improvement to mimic a typical Wiki Article. For example, changing some of the print to make distinctions and expanding on the material.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is in a great developing stage.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? All of the content provides reliable sources to the content.
 * How can the content added be improved? Expand and don't generalize a couple sections. (be specific)

Overall evaluation
Article is in a great developing stage! A couple edits to expand on the topic more and a broad/precise lead section could create a great article.