User:Ecbon/Deaf culture/Ecbon 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? ITBillet (Izze Billet)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Deaf Culture: Cochlear Implants section

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead was not updated. The lead looks very good. I don't think adding information on cochlear implants to the lead is necessary, but it could be introduced there. The lead does not include any information not present in the article. It is concise and well written.

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?

Content evaluation
The content on cochlear implants is very relevant and controversial when it comes to Deaf culture. All of the added information seems up-to-date. While the paragraph addresses well topics related to historically underrepresented populations (e.g., the Deaf community), I think that some counter arguments are needed in order to avoid sounding persuasive or biased. It needs some arguments that support the cochlear implant, although these arguments may be addressed or refuted by contradicting information from the opposite perspective.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is not quite neutral enough. I think all of the information added is valid and relevant, however I believe that some arguments in support of cochlear implants need to be provided and addressed. Without counterarguments, the content seems a bit biased towards Deaf culture and and the social model of disability (which I agree with, but still counterarguments are needed). The viewpoints of the those in favor of the social model of disability are overrepresented and viewpoints from the medical model are not addressed. The content seems to be persuading me to support the social model of disability.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the reference links worked when I clicked on them and the references look correct. The literature cited well supports the arguments provided in the section. All sources are current. More literature in support of the cochlear implant is needed in order to provide a counterargument. Some of the authors are members of Deaf community which is excellent.

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?

Organization evaluation
The content is well written, concise, and clear to read. I did not spot any grammatical or spelling errors. Each paragraph of this section has a clear theme/topic and is well organized. The one recommendation I would make is to check for run-on sentences.

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?

Images and media evaluation
While no images were added, an edit was made to a caption on the cochlear implant image. The caption makes sense and clearly communicates how the implant does not "cure" Deafness, but provides users with "representations" of sounds. It is well laid out and meets copyright regulations. It enhances understanding of the topic by providing a visual of where the cochlear implant is placed in the body and how it connects tot the auditory nerve.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This was not a new article.

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the content added vastly improves the quality of the article. The strengths of the content include how it represents the views of the Deaf community and the social model of disability. However, counterarguments are needed to prevent the content from sounding biased.