User:ColdRainyDay45/Click tracking/Cheersmate510 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? (provide username) ColdRainyDay45
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ColdRainyDay45/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? n/a
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, user mentions alternative names, click paths, product design, and related industries.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise. I think it should be a good length once the user includes descriptions of the other sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all within last 20 years
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Need to mention alternative names, click paths, product design, and related industries. Write more about privacy concerns. Is there any research on how aware people are of this occuring?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, it is mostly neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I would write about cons (privacy concerns). Right now the search engine improving as a result of click tracking makes it lean towards the positive side.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? underrepresented on the cons side.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the author does not seem to be persuading users one way or the other. However, it seems that the whole picture is not in the article yet.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? For the most part. Author currently has 7 unique sources, but one they add more it will be fine.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, all within last 20 years
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No. There are no website links, but when I copy and paste into google I get the desired results

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Seemed good to me. A previous editor stated that she went through and made some corrections
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? n/a
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Author breaks down complex subject to something very understandable.
 * How can the content added be improved? By adding more perspectives