User:Egerity/Electrical telegraph/Patrickwiegand26 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? (Egerity)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Egerity/sandbox

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 has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. New words were added to improve the quality of the Lead. The Lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead itself does not appear to include a brief description of the article's major sections, but all of the sections fo the article can be found right above the Lead. The Lead mostly discusses information that is present in the article, but some information, such as the topic of Morse Code, does not appear again in the article. Overall, the Lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic, but no new information appears to have been added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The sentence structure of the article was revised with words removed and added to improve the quality of writing and the content appears to be up to date. There does not appear to be any missing content or content that does not belong. That being said, I believe that the first and second world war sections could use some additional information.

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 added is neutral, and there does not appear to be any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. Viewpoints on the first and second world wars involving the electrical telegraph appear to be underrepresented. The content added does not 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the content added was not new information, so the sources remain the same. That being said, some sections need more citations and references, such as the sections on the World Wars. The sources appear to reflect available literature on the topic, but more sources are needed. The sources are not current, but they do appear to accurately reflect information on the telegraph of that particular time. For example, some of the topics discussed are about the telegraph in the 1800s, so the sources appear to accurately reflect information on the telegraph from that time. The links seem to be working.

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 added is concise, clear, and easy to read, and seems to be grammatically correct. Most of the content added seems to be improving the overall grammar of the article. The content added is well organized, but more content could be added to reflect some of the major points 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article does include images that enhance understanding of the topic, and the images are well-captioned, and give the viewer a thorough explanation of what they are looking at. The images seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and are laid out in a visually appealing way. They are placed on the sides of the article as to not get in the way of the content of the article.

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?

Overall evaluation
The content added has improved the overall quality of the article, but more information on topics that are not heavily discussed could be added to make the article more complete. The strengths of the article are that the wording has been improved to help with the overall flow of the article. It also improves the grammar of the article as a whole. There does not appear to be much improvement necessary for the added content, but keep in mind the rules for paraphrasing as you add new content to certain areas. Overall, good work, and the way you are editing your article has given me some more ideas on how to improve my own article.