User:Doglovers1234/Problematic smartphone use/Karaj623! Peer Review

General info
Doglovers1234
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Doglovers1234/Problematic smartphone use
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Problematic smartphone use

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead


 * My partner did forget to add a lead, so there is no updated information.
 * My partner did not add a lead, therefore there was no introductory sentence.
 * There is no lead so it does not have a brief description.
 * The lead does not include information not present in the article, because there is no lead.


 * There is no concise lead because there is no lead.

Content


 * The content added to this article was relevant to the topic.
 * The content added is decently up to date, the information is from 2017.
 * No, I felt as if the content was added in all the right places.
 * The article does not deal with one o

Tone and Balance


 * I do not believe this was biased, since all of the information wads facts.
 * I didn’t feel anything was heavily biased.
 * No, the writer explained everything extremely well and fairly, I did not think that there was anything overrepresented, or underrepresented.
 * No, I do not think there is any information stated that was persuading one way or another, the writer simply just added a paragraph about narcissism.

Sources and References


 * The new content is all backed up by a reliable secondary source.
 * Yes, after checking the source this writer used, I determined it was reflecting what the sources said.
 * Yes the source is thorough, because it does reflect the literature at the top.
 * The source is current.
 * The article used is not writer by a diverse spectrum of authors, one is a white women, and two are white males.
 * I thought this article was very reliable after reading reviews on it, and also after reading information about the author writing the article.
 * After checking a few links they did work.

Organization


 * The content is well written and concise.
 * The content has no errors in spelling or grammar.
 * Yes, the content is broken down into sections, and there are no run on sentences.

Images and Media


 * This does not have any images.
 * There are no images, therefore they are not captioned.
 * There are no images, so there are no broken rules of Wikipedias regulations.
 * There are no images so they are not not visually pleasing.

Overall Impressions


 * Yes I feel as if the information that the writer added was helping to improve this article, because it was giving information on how cell phone use can lead to narcissism.
 * The strengths would be that there is a lot of great information, and nothing is overdone. I also thought that the edits made to the original article were extremely well written.
 * One weakness of this edit, was that they could shave probably used at least one more source that they had in their bibliography. Overall though they did a great job!