User:Cquinn1112/Comments section/Isabella Pham 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) Cquinn1112
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Comments section

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * 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? It mostly describe parts from the History section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, you added a lot of good info about the moderation of toxic comments.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the statistics that you added were from 2017, so they are fairly recent and accurate. The same goes for the info about YouTube demonetizing certain channels based on their comments section, because that is still a very current issue.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the info that was added is fitting for the article. One thing that you could possibly expand on is the idea that some people view removing comments as bias and censorship. Maybe you could find some info about whether or not this is actually a violation of First Amendment rights?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, even though you talked about issues such as sexism in comments sections, it was written in a professional and factual way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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.

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? Yes.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No. In fact, you corrected some errors that were already there before you added info to the article, which is great.
 * 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?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I like how you elaborated on some of the different things that can make comments toxic (sexism, racism, ableism), as well as the factors that make people more likely to comment (wanting to express opposing views, having a personal connection to a topic, etc).
 * How can the content added be improved? As mentioned before, you could possibly expand on the idea of comment screening/removal as a form of censorship. Overall, the article looks pretty solid to me.