User:Corynneemmerson/Cybercrime/Sadiemacd 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) Corynneemmerson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Corynneemmerson/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet, the lead will be updated when she publishes her work.
 * 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? yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is very relevant to the topic because it gives a way to prevent the crimes which was not included in the original article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content is good.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it appears to be all facts and the sources are given to back up the content.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the added content was a few organizations that are trying to prevent cyber crime

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? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? One of the sources is from 2010, one is from 2012, and the third doesn't have a date next to it. The sources are up to date considering its been at least within the past ten years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise and easy to read. The added content is well written, easy to understand, and also very informative.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added was a section that wasn't originally in the article, the added content is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? NO.
 * 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? No.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the article is more complete with the added content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? One strength is that it is a completely different section than what was originally in the article. It helps explain what organizations and what methods are being used to help prevent cyber crime.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the content could have more information of the actual organizations themselves but overall I think this content is a good way to help the readers of the article understand the topic more.