User:Hmc442/Vacuum activity/Emw3181 Peer Review

Peer review By Emw3181
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) Hmc442
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hmc442/First Draft of Article

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?
 * Feedback:
 * The lead could use more information about the topic and sub headings that follow. The lead does clearly describe the articles topic. The lead could also just briefly talk about the sections that follow. The includes relevant information to the topic and nothing that is not presented. The lead is concise but could use more information to expand on just a definition.

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?
 * Feedback:
 * The content that was added is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. There could be content missing especially in lead and under "history" section, these sections could benefit from more 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?
 * Feedback:
 * The content added is neutral and claims are all unbiased and does not attempt to persuade a reader to favor one position.

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?
 * Feedback:
 * New content added need some backing up with references to reliable sources, as it seems this draft does not have many references added. I would definitely suggest citing things and finding relevant sources to reference.

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?
 * Feedback:
 * The content added is well-written as it is easy to read and easy to understand the topic. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The organization of the article is good and breaks up the content in a way that's easy to read and understand.

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?
 * Feedback:
 * There are no images included.

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?
 * Feedback:
 * The content that has been added does improve the overall quality of the article and gives the article a more complete feeling. The strengths of the content added is the different sub sections created and added and the way it is written makes it easy to understand. The content added can be improved by finding more research to reference and cite as there is only 1 reference right now. Also just adding more information under "history" section and the lead could be beneficial.