User:Cube Wang/Adobe/Dandan619 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) Cube Wang
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cube Wang/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, lead has been revised to better explain topics.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, clearly states ideas.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, gives a good summary.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information is present.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is well phrased.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, content added better describes topics.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All added content is addressed. Can elaborate more on Adobe around the World.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Topic addresses historically underrepresented populations and topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, neutral content.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? A view points are well presented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, content added is neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is easy to comprehend.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical error or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Content is well organized and addresses major points in 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? Yes, contain well described images.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes all images captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, all images adhere to Wikipedias copyright violation.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, well organized.

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, added content rephrase the lead in a well fashioned manner. More complete and descriptive.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Better represents the topic and main points.
 * How can the content added be improved? The new section added "Adobe around the World" should be more detailed and have more references.