User:Dwfelice/Uncertainty reduction theory/Charlisomers 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

 * Sgilbreath
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sgilbreath/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, this user added information in the 10 section of the existing article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No. However, the lead sentences for the information added are concise and clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. The original article does not provide this information either so this would be great information to add.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The added information in the sandbox does present information that is not already presented in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The draft does not have lead components. The lead in the original article is sufficient.

Lead evaluation
No lead section/information added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content this user added in the draft is relevant. It expands on ideas that are already presented in the original but provide more up to date and additional information.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all the references/information added is from the 2000's. With the exception of one being published in the 90's but revised in the 2000's. In contrast, the information/references used in the original article only about half are from the 2000's.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, the content added is relevant and expands on information presented in the original article. The information provided belongs.

Content evaluation
The information provided adds great, up to date content that flows with the existing article/information. The 'Employees and Employers' section adds great content to the 'Job hiring process' that already exists. The 'online education' section provides insightful, relevant information that contributes to the 'computer-mediated communication' section of the existing article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes. Any information that could be considered biased is presented with a reference and indicates that it is that scholars study/views/ideas and not the authors. Overall, the added information is neutral and presents facts.
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
The information added presents facts and references to previous studies or research. There is no persuading or bias in this information. Especially in the 'online education' section, it would be easy to add this authors personal views being that they are experiencing that currently being in an online course, but they relied on facts and research rather than personal experience or feelings.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all peer-reviewed articles from scholarly sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all within the 2000's.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
Appropriate use of references and citing. All references are noted and all information is cited properly. The use of references is appropriate, not having too many or too little.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, all information is very well written. It flows well and makes sense. It contributes to the already existing information/article and will help the article flow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, the content is grammatically correct.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. The topics added are either additions to already existing topics in the original article and will enhance that information or it is a new topics within another existing topic in the original.

Organization evaluation
The organization and presentation of the content is well done.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * 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

Images and media evaluation
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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, this information adds great content to the article. This information is not covered in the originally and will enhance the information provided.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * New, updated information to provide to an existing article that could use more recent information. Additions of information (online education and commerce) that bring the article more into this era.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Additional information for the entire article, not just a few sections. the up to date information being provided in this draft would be a benefit to the whole article.

Overall evaluation
Great information added! Very well written and presented. Great use of references. Additions to more aspects of the original article would be a great addition to the work already started in this draft.