User:AcademicAlien/Internet Militarization/IssacLovesNews 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)
 * KellyJoB445
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yeah, but maybe just a little more information on it in the beginning.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yeah but maybe just throw in a little background information on Japan and China.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I dont think it is overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I would say just a little more content on the United States and Russia.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I suggested maybe a timeframe for when China and Japan joined the internet race.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * ^ As stated I would say maybe just a couple dates of when Japan and China became serious about internet militarization.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I would say so, gave general information on all four countries.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I dont think so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the United States and Russia were underrepresented, I would say just a couple more present or up to date facts about both of them.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I would say no.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I only saw 3 sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes but maybe a couple more.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, just maybe some background information on China and Japan in the lead section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
A couple of things I liked about the article was first I liked how the general history gave information about how and why the internet was created. I also liked how they talk about several countries and their role with internet militarization. I was somewhat confused at first when reading the article because I didn't see the definition, but at the end of the article, it gives you the definition which wraps up everything well.

A thing I would change is to give a date when China and Japan both joined and started to progress in internet militarization. I feel like this would help because at the beginning of the article it gives background information of when the internet was started and the reasoning behind it. Russia and the United States are brought up and it gives a little information on when those two joined the internet race but China and Japan are not. I feel like it would help the reader understand how much experience each country has in this field and how far they have come since the cold war.

Although the United States and Russia are brought up in history after that they are not talked about. I feel like adding a couple of bullet points about both countries would help because the United States and Russia have had and continue to have a huge impact on internet militarization. I would say even like 3 bullet points would help, and talk about how both countries progressed in Internet militarization.

When looking back on my article I see some similarities when it comes to how the United States governs the internet. In my article, Clear is a company that helps their members cut lines at sporting events, airports, and get certain goods and beverages delivered to them while they are at sporting arenas or airports. All members must permit Clear to scan their faces for Face-ID and get their fingerprints to access certain stadiums.