User:Cooper Justin/Computer and Video Games/Zaid mazahreh 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? User Name-Cooper Justin
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Cooper Justin/Computer and Video Games

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise very Understandable

Lead evaluation
It has been updated and uploaded to his draft. His introduction is interesting and uses smart wording that brings everything together. It does have a destruction but I believe it needs more when it comes to describing, or maybe he is just trying to put his words together in a more brief manner overall good introductions and information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added is very relevant to the topic, it's up to date, nothing is misplaced and assumes nothing to a offensive saying yet brings a lot of history when this topic was up and coming.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
-The content is most importantly neutral, it is represented perfectly without showing a biased opinion and not trying to change a persons opinion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
-Sources of this draft are up and running as well as reliable as the main writer does add on all his info with sources that are related to this topic. They are current, Brings a diverse amount of different authors.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
-The content is very well clear, it's brief but is filled with information that is easy to read. There were some grammar errors that needed to be fixed but they were easy to

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


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

Images and media evaluation
No Images Or Media were added.

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

New Article Evaluation
-The article does apply itself to Wikipedia's Notability requirements and is supported by 2-3 reliable sources that are independent. It follows a pattern of using the content from the sources and then uses a citation of the source

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Add more facts and information about the topic which strengthens the body of the draft.
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
-Overall the added content is a boost of quality and makes it more complete, The strengths are definitely in the overall experience that is added since it shows a point of view perspective that shows an honest interest into the topic. All I can say as it needs improvement is more content the more content the better and brings a purpose of the article to give the best information about the topic