User:Atallent/Being Digital/Destyanderson 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? Yes, it has been updated by the classmates assigned to the project.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does describe the topic, but I feel it could be more clear and have a little more depth into the book is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It did not include a description of the articles major sections. If it did then they where not clear about the coming sections. It did mostly compromise of one section which are the advantages in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead did to have extra information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is overly detailed in that last section which is the advantages section, and would just need the other two sections to be added in it as well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all the content added to the topic is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all the content and citations are up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content missing would be the major themes of the book. I feel like they are touched on but need to be more expressed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? There was a part in the Lead that seemed biases in where it states he was amazing how he conducted research and predict the future.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I only really found one part that seemed biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The last section is the only section that is overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all the content is support by secondary sources. It really only uses the book as a source for most of the content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They do reflect the literature there just needs to be more sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current. There is one source from 2013, but it is still relevant in the topic.
 * 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? The content is well written. It is easy to read and understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find any spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is broken down into sections, but I feel like there should be more information added in.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, the only image included was the image of the book. I should include more diagrams.
 * Are images well-captioned? There is no image to be captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it does.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the title of the book is in the appropriate part to showcase the books information.

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.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Nothing was added.
 * How can the content added be improved? Nothing was added.