User:Apple1223/Multi-factor authentication/Kzw53 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)
 * The work that I am reviewing is Apple1223's.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Apple1223/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead seems to have been updated to add new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes and introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead does not include a description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead does not include information that is not 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?
 * Yes, the content is added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There does not seem to be any information that is missing, or any content that does not belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, the article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, or address any historically underrepresented populations of topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content that is added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the new content is backed up by reliable secondary source information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources seem to reflect the literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current, although there is only one that is actually used within their in-text citations.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. No, they do not include historically marginalized individuals where possible.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content is well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is well-organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Again, there are 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, the content added seems to improve the overall quality of the article, and helps it come across as more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added gives more background into the article, and help keeps it up to date with current information. Since there is already so much information on two facto authentication, it helps make sure that people are informed, without repeating previous information.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content could be added to or improved by adding some images and using more of the resources in the in-text citations.