User:Atallent/Being Digital/ParkerJennings Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.


 * Atellentm, KRCPhilmon, DamianDanielly, TyraWashington
 * 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? Hard to say. It appears so far, just grammatical mistakes and removing a few links have been changed.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. It describes that the article is about a book, as well as what the book is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Sort of. It introduces some of the concepts that will be discussed later, like the eventuality of moving towards a digital world. But This concept is not referred to by name until reaching it's point in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The section on "Daily Me" was discussed and explained in the lead in, but should probably also receive its own section in the same way that "Bits are Bits" had.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it's mostly good, but a few parts could be cut out and/or moved to other sections of the article. Things like the "Daily Me" as mentioned earlier, as well a lot of the talk about his predictions could be moved into a section about predictions (or the impact section).

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Everything is relevant as it all pertains to the book.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Everything looks up to date. With parts about the things happening after the book (predictions, negroponte switch being coined) being accurate.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything in the article seems necessary. A section on the medium not being the message, or at least a mention of it is the only glaring omission that comes to mind.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Mostly, except in a few parts. Early on there are words like "It is amazing that" or "He truly was ahead of his time" and later on "It's fascinating" and "there is no denying". These are subjective phrases.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The subjective phrases mentioned earlier seem more intended to praise Negroponte than to just state and explain his ideas presented in the book.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Underrepresented seems to be the concept of the bit. It says "the bit is the digital, such as the computer". This is vague, and to the uninformed reader may make them think a computer itself is a bit. Since a computer is what we use to access the bits it is just the medium and a collection of atoms. Explaining more (or defining) what a bit is in more detail should clear up this confusion.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It seems to want to persuade the reader into being amazed at what Negroponte wrote.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Mostly. All of the things pertaining to Negroponte appear to be, but some links to the proof of the claim that his predictions came true would help. Things like Ubereats and tablets are well understood by the common reader, but aren't sourced outside of a link to accompanying Wikipedia articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? They are all close in date to the release date of the book, so around 1995. One source is from 2013, but if there is a section of the impact it had on the future, maybe some more sources that come from a significant amount of time after the book could help.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Nothing under the references section took me out of the article, outside of an ISBN lookup page.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I feel like maybe a few more sections from the book should have their own section. As stated before, the medium is not the message, and the daily me.

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?

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? It's again, hard to say because it is mostly tidying up as opposed to completely new content so far. Which is fine, just makes it hard to judge.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Clarity.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added so far is fine, but some of the other things previously mentioned could use some changes.