User:Aqr5626/Oculus Quest 2/Ojg5046 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): User:Aqr5626
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Oculus Quest 2

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? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very detailed but I believe that this is good considering the people who will be looking up this particular topic will want specifics on the game itself, which the article provides.

Lead evaluation
The topic seems interesting and I am looking forward to hearing about the product once its released

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes it is all additional factual information
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes within the last 2 months
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, the topic is about a new VR headset. It has nothing to do with people or societal issues.

Content evaluation
The content is all very up to date and well written!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes all of the added content is factual and from a neutral viewpoint
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no it is only factual information
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? no it is only factual information
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no it is only factual information

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall tone of the piece is neutral and factual, a perfect Wikipedia article!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes, since the topic is fairly new there is not much literature on the topic but the user seems to have found reliable sources to fill in the gaps.
 * Are the sources current? yes they are all published within the past year
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, the sources are either from the manufacturer's website or from a technology news site (TheVerge.com)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes all of the links work

Sources and references evaluation
Considering that the product hasn't been released yet so there are very few sources discussing it, the sources listed are very good and provide very solid information!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes it is very well organized and concisely written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? none that can be found
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes the organization of the page is effective considering there is not much information on the topic and it is still a fairly new topic. The organization makes up for this by presenting the information available based on the different functions of the headset so that information can be found quickly.

Organization evaluation
The organization does a great job of picking up the slack that the lack of information about the subject leaves. It would make sense for the organization to continue to be absed off of the functionality of the product once it comes out, and maybe then customer reviews can be added about each function?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Y es it is more detailed and fills in previous gaps of information
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I t offers more detail so that the article is more factual and informational
 * How can the content added be improved? Once the VR headset comes out it would be helpful to add reviews from customers and profits made by the company

Overall evaluation
Overall, the added content has benefited the article and sets up a good platform for continued improvements to be made.