User:Annie Barry/COGnitive Gaming/Zachprince6 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

 * Annie Barry
 * COGnitive Gaming

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? I think the introductory sentence could be a little more clear for users who aren't gamers.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead doesn't really have a main section it looks like it's just the start.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All the information is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant. It just needs to be more descriptive.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes the content is up-to-date. Cease of operations being in 2016.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything belongs there it seems as though there could be more content added on the subject.

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? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The contact is backed up by a reliable source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they are.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The second link did not work. The rest worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it's well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No all spelling and grammar appears to be correct.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, this article needs more images.
 * Are images well-captioned? No.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Only 1 image and yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

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? No there could be more sources added.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes it links to a few other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Needs to have more information on the subject added to the article. It's a great start.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added is accurate and informative however there is very little presented on the subject.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more information and paragraphs.

Overall evaluation
Needs improvement.