User:Chefmary01/Long-distance relationship/Bua327 Peer Review

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Chefmary01)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Chefmary01/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, new content has been added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence, but it leans toward opinion rather than fact.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The edits don't include the description, but the original did so the student did not need to add one.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information that is presented in the lead is in the article itself as well.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * There are some extraneous details that could be removed (like the use of parenthetical examples), but it is concise overall.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The student focused on technology as it relates to long distance relationships and expanded upon how it is relevant today.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all articles and sources are from the last 10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some content leans toward opinion instead of fact, so that will need to be reworked to align with Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but I'm not sure that it would be necessary for this topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * No, there are some opinions and "I" statements throughout.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Overall, the claims are not biased. The article leans toward opinion due to the use of "I" statements.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There could be some information added to the "Technology influencing LD family relationships" section as it is a bit underrepresented compared to the previous section above it.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. With the use of a source with data on face-to-face communication and technological communication, all sides are presented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are some citations that need to be added, but of the content that is cited correctly, it is from a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are from the past 10 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It seems that the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors based on the diversity of journal articles. It is difficult to say if they included historically marginalized individuals as that was not a focus or a subsection in this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * There were no new links. However, the citations were accurately linked to the bibliography at the bottom of the page.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is mostly well-written. There were some instances where it seemed the sentence may have been edited during one session and then forgotten to return to later.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, I have added some recommendations for this in the sandbox.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it is very well organized. Each subsection focuses on the appropriate points of the topic.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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? n/a
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? n/a
 * 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? n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added has improved the overall quality of the article. It would be helpful to find out where certain new sections would fall in the original article to see if the organization is still flowing well. The content added has made the article more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added are the relevancy of the sources and the updated technological mediums that people in LDRs are using. As the student mentioned, LDRs have been around for a long time; it's just the mode of communication that has changed.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Be sure to cite everything that you found from other sources and to limit the use of "I" in the article overall.