User:Eapostle/Filter bubble/Sal.hammad21 Peer Review

Peer review
Hi Eapostle,

My name is Salah and I am reviewing your article contributions for the FilterBubble article on Wikipedia. I have read through the article and it is very informative and I definitely learned a lot reading through it. I saw that you just started writing down your bibliography as well as your links, books, sites, and academic journals you have used. Below I have bullet pointed some things that could use work and I hope that finds you well!


 * For the title "Bibliography" you have just written it in, but you should highlight the word and add a heading so that you have properly constructed and identified what exactly you are doing and where I can find the details.
 * The references seem to be scholarly, credible, and all around great sources. I'm not entirely sure which part of the article you will be fixing or adding to, but your list is a bit long and I would recommend two things. First thing, is maybe having a side note on each reference so that you can identify what value each of them bring. Just a little note, something to remind you why you chose that, what are it's contents, and what you plan on doing with it. This will keep you up to date in your already busy life and you can pick up where you left off. Second recommendation is to consider narrowing down your references, six is a lot for editing or adding one section. This isn't something you have to do, but it'd make it a bit easier to contribute and paraphrase each source.
 * For your bibliography, under the first line you should insert template titled "reflist" so that you can properly site the footnotes in an article. As nice as it is to get the full citation in, it is a lot more presentable and easy to find when you insert the reflist template. I will show you an example below using one of your references:

This is your citation for the Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B book. Click on the blue 1 to the far left, to fully see your citation!

Nevertheless, these are main things that need work, i hope my review has become insightful and informative. I hope that this finds you and I wish you the best of luck in your wiki article assignment!

~

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they 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?

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