User:Atallent/Being Digital/Deasbarker 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? @BeingDigital
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Being Digital

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It has been updated. However, one sentence in particular stuck out which happens to be biased.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does hint at what the book is going to entail. But, I feel as if more can be added to this short sentence - it's very bland.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not. For the major sections that were listed, it was not included in the lead paragraph. They need to add "bits and atoms" along with all the other major sections to the lead paragraph and give a look into what they will soon be discussing in further detail.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. The lead did not add more to the article that was not present.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's overly detailed in the fact that it only focuses on one major section and that is the section of predicting the future; needs to be more evened out.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is relevant. But just needs more details for each section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel as if there could be more content added to the major sections of the book. They were lightly touched on but more could definitely be added to it. For example, I would go into further detail of how Negroponte feels - he is thinking digitally. He is beginning to think of education in a digital way and less than in an analog way.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It seemed to me that the content at times seemed a little biased. As stated before, the last paragraph of the lead hinted at being biased with saying how it's amazing how Negroponte did this or that.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Everything else besides the first paragraph was neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would argue that all the main sections are underrepresented. There needs to be more content and more depth to each major section. I might go as far as to add what the medium of this message would be - everything you encounter is a medium, everything orders and shapes our reality in some way. So therefore - what is Negroponte trying to get across?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content is not meant to persuade the reader in any way shape or form.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The book is the main source of information - so with that being said, no.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes - just needs more information added.
 * Are the sources current? Yes - but they need to be elaborated on - add more sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links of the article do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't seem to catch any - however, I noticed that this article had been edited out with grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The major subjects that were chosen to be the topic points are accurate. Those are the three main points discussed in Being Digital.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is only one image listed and that is the image of the book itself.
 * Are images well-captioned? The caption listed exactly what it is - the cover of the book.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes they do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Sure. It's to the right of the page where the viewer can easily see the image.

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? Nothing was added to this article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Nothing was added to this article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Content can be improved by adding content and depth to the article.