User:Hthrxlynn/A Rape in Cyberspace/Bridgette96 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)-- I am reviewing User:Hthrxlynn
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: A Rape in Cyberspace

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?-- The updated information that I am able to view from my peers was added to the Legacy section in the article. So, the Lead has not been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?--The introductory paragraph does not clearly describe the article's topic. It includes who wrote the article and those who found the article important.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?-- Julian Dibbell's LambdaMOO experiences was briefly mentioned. As of now, the article has two major sections, which are the summary and the legacy. The experience mentioned in the beginning may be an opener for summary that further describes the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The mention of Lawrence Lessig and Sociologist David Trend were only mentioned in the Lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say the Lead in concise, even though I suggest to briefly add more exact details about the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content that is added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added is up-to-date. All of the references can be found.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there could be more content on the page. As of right now, it only has a summary and legacy section. In the summary, there are background information about the game, so I suggest adding a different section for a brief history on the game.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I think the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?-- The article is about someone's experience, so I think it it leans more to their point on view.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?-- I don't think they underrepresented. There is more that can be said in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -- No, I don't think the information in the article is an attempt to persuade the readers. It is more about sharing a very interesting experience.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?-- Yes, the new content are backed up by secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are thorough. They are on topic with the article.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are not current. Most of them were written in 2006.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I understood what was written. I think it was clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? After checking the content added, I didn't see 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? Yes, the content is organized. It is broken down into different sections.

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?

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? yes, I would say the content added to the legacy section of the article improved the article and gave the readers more information about the game's impact.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article has a very detailed and clear summary.
 * How can the content added be improved? It can be improved by adding more to the section because I think it is not well developed as yet.