User:AcademicAlien/Internet Militarization/Fit21 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

 * AcademicAlien
 * 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?
 * Lead is left blank until article is fully written.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the content gives information about Internet Militarization from multiple countries.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, it is up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Is Russia's cyber attack on the US considered Internet Militarization?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral, providing facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * 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?
 * No, the article does not.
 * No, the article does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are 3 sources cited
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes,
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work, and are linked to other Wikipedia articles.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well-writien, but does not provide a reason as to why I am reading about certain topics, i.e. Russian and Japanese internet; it jumps right into it. Why, as a reader, is it important for me to reaed about it? Maybe when the lead is finished, it will provide a more concise view-point.
 * Article needs more flow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Only a few spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * With the lead I think the article will reflect the major points of the topic; article needs more organization.

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 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 the article has 2-3 reliable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I am not sure how much literature is out there on this subject, but I think that the group did extensive research.
 * 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?
 * Not entirely, subheadings and info boxes are needed.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, it does.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * This is a very interesting topic, and I am interested to see where this article is heading!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I like how the article does not just tralk about American internet militarization; the article touches on internet militarization in other parts of the world.
 * How can the content added be improved?