User:Caroliner6/Affective design/Adrifaye Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Caroliner6


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Caroliner6/Affective design


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Affective design

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead- The lead does do a good job of introducing the article's topic and the article's major sections, however, I noticed that the part on ambient intelligence was moved to it's own section and now isn't discussed in the lead, so maybe consider still briefly discussing this in the lead. The lead is concise and not overly detailed while still containing a lot of relevant information.

Content- The content added seems very relevant. The section that was added about the background was incredibly useful in understanding the content better. The content also seems up to date. All of the added content certainly appears to belong, but it seems like there may be more to be said about ambient intelligence as it is a relatively small section and the "video games" and "human robot" thoughts seem to be unfinished, so I would suggest adding to this part.

Tone and Balance- The content added appears to be neutral, but some statements could use some sources to prove that they aren't biased. For example, at the start of the background portion it says "emotions are an integral part of the human experience", which I agree with, but there are no supporting articles explaining why they are an integral part, which makes this statement not as strong as it could be. I do however think that all points were equally represented, so just adding more sources would certainly fix this slight tone problem.

Sources and References- As I mentioned in the last part, this article could use a few more sources in the background section so that the reader knows that everything that is claimed is backed up by some sort of article and not biased, but the sources that are present are really good! The content seems to reflect what the sources say, and the sources appear to be both thorough and current. The sources also are different from one another which offers a more diverse opinion on this topic, so great job with the sources that you selected so far. All of the links also work.

Organization- The content is very well written so far, as someone who doesn't understand anything related to computer science, I was still able to understand this topic through the article. The article also appears to be well organized, but I think that to balance it out, you may consider adding to some of the sections since the background section overpowers the rest of the article. I didn't find any spelling or grammar errors while reading!

Images- This article doesn't contain any images, so maybe consider adding at least some sort of visual aid to help further guide the reader.