User:Cbeedy/History of computer science/GZhen Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cbeedy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cbeedy/History of computer science
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * History of computer science

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

- Despite not knowing about CS I feel as though the lead is lacking. In the sense that it does not include definitions for important terms. Instead right after the introduction it jumps right into binary logic. Although computer science is a well known field people who don't major or study that field may not know exactly what computer science entails. What I mean by this is that I feel for cases of the history it is best to include a little more information about computer science within the lead and possibly give few examples of advancements in CS. The lead talks about mechanical inventions to mathematical theories without elaborating or presenting examples. Although these terms wouldn't be counted as jargon I still think that the placement can confuse the reader especially if they have no prior CS knowledge. The lead is definitely not overly detailed but it also cannot be called concise since it lacks in information. Although the editor doesn't seem like he is working on fixing the lead section of the article but focusing on a different area of the article I still think that edits to the lead can be made.

Content:

- The original article does well in terms of content. All the information included is relevant. And Cbeedy's addition to one of the articles subheadings is also relevant. I don't take much issue with what is written. I cannot be sure if there is content missing on the section being worked on since I don't major in it. But it looks as if the information isn't lacking.

Tone and Balance:

- The tone is neutral within the article. Since the article is about a particular person's advancements there isn't much to worry about in terms of equity. But there are some grammar/ spelling mistakes especially prevalent towards the end of the additions made in the randomness and creativity section. Additionally, it looks like they are trying to phrase the questions asking through the research done but I think that's a bad idea instead they can probably find a better way to phrase it so that the question is stated as a statement on the issues covered.

Sources and references:

- Cbeedy uses a variety of different sources ranging from academic scholarly articles to books to news articles. But all of the sources are used correctly and are reliable. The links do work. I'm not sure if it's a cause for concern but I cannot readily access some of them especially the ones that are linked to books references.

Organization:

- The organization of the article could be improved. Since it starts off talking about the history of CS working from major advancements (binary logic) to the creation of computers but then the next section is called "Emergence of a Discipline) and in there there are dates from 1800's to 1900's. I think there could be things done to change the organization especially since we are talking about the history of CS it may be better to organize it so that each advancement is in chronological order. I do like the organization made by the editor since it is easy to find and to understand. But I'm worried that once they move it out of the sandbox this organization is not going to match with the organization of the rest of the wikipedia article. Since in the original article the organization for the section being worked on was the subheading for the name of the person and then following it a paragraph on what they did and it's significance. I think that by just removing the subheadings created and making it into a paragraph would suffice to fix the issue.

Overall impression:

- The content written by Cbeedy is concise, informational and formatted in a easy to read way. But I think in terms of the original article there could be some work done there. Additionally, although they describe binary numbers it may still help readers if an image was included to show what binary numbers actually look like. There are no images added but I think there should be.