User:Hennock,l/Bitcoin/TylerSukovski 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)- Hennock,I
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Bitcoin

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 is up to date with content

- The lead provides a sentence that right away tells you what the topic is about

- It does't really give clear description of what is going to be talked about later on, but the lead is to the point with some information that can still help.

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?

Content evaluation
- The content within the article all relates to the topic

- all content is currently up to date

- the content within is all related in some way to the topic

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 within is all fairly neutral

- All claims are neutral ad not very biased towards one position

- There is a lot of information that can be condensed and is very over represented

- No the content is just giving readers a run down on the system that many people do not know about but there is no real bias or persuasion within the reading

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
- All information has relevant and reliable secondary sources and they do reflect the literature of the topic

- all sources are current

- links 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?

Organization evaluation
- Content is well written

- no apparent spelling errors

- content could be grouped better, there is a ton of sub categories that could be grouped together and potentially summed up into a smaller category

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 images don't really do much justice but they are the to try and help, there is not much visual to put that the average person who doesn't know about bitcoin could look at and help them with there understanding of the article

- Images are captioned well

- they adhere to the regulations

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
Overall its well done, but i suggest to maybe sum everyhting into more concise points as there is a lot to read that can be said in a smaller amount of words