User:Arcpkl/Big data/Yjh5146 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)
 * Arcpkl
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Big data

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead reflect all the content apporiatly.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead include the introductory sentence that describe the article's topic clearly and concisely.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead did not include the brief description of the article majot sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * All the information that leads included are all presented in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead is overdetailed. The length of the lead is kind too long.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added are all relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added has been up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All the content al releated to the article. There are not missing parts.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * All the content addressed with the topic and releated to the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added are stay in a neutal position.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are not claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All the viewpoints are represent well.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content that this article inculdes did not try to lead readers to a specific position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All the content are backed up by a reliable secondary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources that this article use are all releated to the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The soureces are current and available.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources that include in this article are varity that written by different authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that I checked are all available.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content in this article are concisely, clearly and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are not grammatically adn spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * All the sections in this article are well organized and releated to the topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images are releated to the topic and can help the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * THe images are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images that this article used are fit the requirements of copyright regulation.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images laid out in a visually appealing way.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?