User:C.robinrcbc/Software engineering/Monica Pramono Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

C.robinrcbc Article


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:C.robinrcbc/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Software engineering

Evaluate the drafted changes
The introduction is easy to understand, just a definition of Software Engineering. However, I think adding some more information such as the summary because it involves everything. I feel like you have to introduced each section in the introduction even in short sentence. The introduction should know the importance of the topic and reflect to the most important information. As I said, just put more into it summarizing everything into the lead section. In terms of clear structure, I think its organized and in order, because I was not lost in the article. There are header and subtopics that can easily be found, it is also in chronological order. When the header has the FIELDS the subtopics is actually related to it and not have a missing information.

In my opinion, in each section I think the length is equal in the importance of the article’s subject. However, in the fields section, just put some more information into other fields to make it  more balanced. Because, the field has this 5-6 sentences while, the others have 2-3 sentences. Add some information. I think everything is necessary in the article and everything is related to the topics. I feel like, adding information will be more likely to happen than removing information because the article needs more information. Significant viewpoints and the perspectives are presented. The article is actually just a full on research therefore, there are no point of view by the reader to accept one particular point of view. Because the article is not giving point of views or not being a bias. Therefore, the article is completely about research related to the topics.

Everything is neutral, no bias, it is a research with a lot of resources. There are no positive and negative information because they just give definitions, examples, and give some background in each section. There are a lot of resources which are reliable, there are further reading and external links which helps give more information about the topic, if people wants to read that is connected to the topic, readers can do that which is good. Overall, I think the article is good, it is a C-class so it is an average. The article needs images also, because the article does not have pictures. Therefore, add pictures and information in the sections that needs improvement such as the FIELDS section. Other than that, I think the article is good just need some improvements.