User:Esteban15vp/AirPods Pro/PaulaUPRC 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? (provide username) Esteban15vp
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Esteban15vp/AirPods Pro

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 section is the same as it is on the AirPods Pro article. The Lead is concise and it clearly describes the articles topic. The Lead does include a brief description of the article's sections. The Lead is concise and it is not 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?

Content evaluation
The content of User:Esteban15vp/AirPods Pro is the same page of AirPods Pro. Although it is the same page the content is relevant to the topic. The content doesn't seem to have information that it's not relevant to the article. This article doesn't deal with any Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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
I don't see any new content added. There is no claim that appears heavily biased toward a particular position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. The content doesn't seem to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another one.

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
There was no new content seen. The only link posted seems to be a reliable source and it works perfectly.

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 written in the article is concise and clear. There are very few punctuation errors. The content is well- organized.

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
There are no images in this article. I would consider adding a picture of the device that the article is talking about.

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
There was only a sentences that was not the same from the AirPods Pro article. Therefore, I would consider adding some more information, or fixing punctuation mistakes, there were very little. I would and some more references. The references added to User:Esteban15vp/AirPods Pro is not able to open; therefore, I would fix that as well. I would include an image; that way people may see the device that the article is talking about and even include a picture of the H1 chip.