User:Dcm829/Neil Postman/Birnbryer20 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Very sorry it took me so long to figure out how to get to this template. Moving between the student section and the real thing has been a significant challenge for me. It is hard to do when you are juggling a lot. Wikipedia could improve its training with a tree diagram of some kind to help.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Dcm829
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Neil Postman Neil Postman

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is very short. It is a biography listing of Neil Postman's major contributions to the field of communication. The lead has relevant links and definitions.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic. Additional content was added to make it more relevant and irrelevant content was removed.

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?

The content that was added was neutral. It is a short article. Since there is a small body of content, it seems to be reasonably balanced based on sources cited. The added content did not attempt to bias the reader. The article has one word that I question as possiblly non-neutral. The word is "proactively."

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The article needs additionalsourcing. The site has significant references and biographies about Postman's work. The links available work.

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?

The content that is added is well written and well organized. I did not observe any grammatical errors. The content focuses on Mr. Postman and is straight-forward.

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?

I am sorry, I could not tell if my peer added any images. I am still getting used to reading the history and the edits. The images that are on the article seem appropriate and in the Wikipedia style. They appear to follow the copyright regulations. The page is visually apealing.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?