User:Brb0305/Collaborative writing/Jmk12 Peer Review

General info
(Brb0305)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Collaborative writing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brb0305/Collaborative_writing/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The lead does a good job of defining the main topic of the article. The lead is concise and overall easy to read and understand. However, I think it can be improved by adding a little more detail about the major subjects the page will go into.

Content:

The content so far seems relevant to the topic. However, I feel that the major sections of "History" and "Authorship" can be further expanded upon.

Tone and Balance:

I think that the article does a good job of maintaining a neutral tone. I like that the examples and studies used show both pros and cons of collaborative writing. I noticed that there was a lot of discussion on communication and its importance to effective collaborative writing which made me wonder if it would be helpful to the reader to also have a section solely on the importance of communication to collaborative writing.

Sources and References:

So far, the sources seem very balanced and useful. They seem to also be used correctly.

Organization:

The article is well organized and covers the major topics within collaborative writing.

Images and Media:

None added.