User:AndrewPpohl/3D printing/AdvaitPanicker Peer Review

General info
AndrewPpohl
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:AndrewPpohl/3D printing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):3D printing

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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, and in fact, I believe the topic added has improved the overall relevance of the article to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, most citations are within the last couple years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, that content has been removed from the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't believe that applies in this case, as there wasn't anything directly connected to underrepresented populations in the current or former article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I feel the content added was neutral, but perhaps phrased in a non-neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Attributing certain events solely to an innovation like patents expiring, when other events, like the innovation of less-costly printers or general awareness of printers going up, could've also made a significant impact.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't think so, I think the edits have removed irrelevant viewpoints that are too specific for the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The content about RepRap comes directly from their own website, which isn't a secondary source of information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * For the most part, yes, although some articles I feel may not have been read through thoroughly, especially research papers.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, most are scholarly or come from reputable websites/institutions.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There are two that were published with IEEE, but aside from that, the sources are indeed diverse.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I think there would be a better source for the RepRap citation.
 * 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?
 * It doesn't always sound "Wikipedia-y", but it is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not to my knowledge.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think the new edits have made the content more well organized, rather than droning on about a subject that isn't relevant to the topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, I definitely believe so. The new content has dramatically improved the readability of the article, which I believe to be true coming from the perspective of someone who is unfamiliar with 3D printing.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content made the history of 3D printing more clear, and it's easier to consider the timeline of how 3D printers grew in popularity.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Instead of simply removing content, it may've been possible to fix the issues of having irrelevant topics by moving them elsewhere, and adding more detail and information to them so they don't seem out of place.