User:Adamng926/Digital citizen/Alex K. Tran 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)
 * Adamng926
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Adamng926/New sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content that Adam will be adding.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Adam starts the lead with "According to DigCit.us, the overlapping goals of digital citizenship education include:", going straight into examples but not an introduction section.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Adam does not offer a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It includes newfound information that is extremely informative.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Although it has a lot of information, it is all concise.
 * Although it has a lot of information, it is all concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content missing as all content is cited as well.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is well-written and is concise/clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized, in fact, it also inspired me to organize my own content better.

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? Yes!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths is the organization and detail. By breaking down the digital citizenship education, it allows content to be easily registrable for all individuals, even those who do not understand what is going on.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Be more clear and offer more introduction. Don't force it in.