User:Hthrxlynn/A Rape in Cyberspace/Sabub Peer Review

Peer review
Hey Heather. I know you have not made many edits so far, but based on your sandbox planning, I can see you already have a lot of plans for the article. I'm looking forward to reviewing it for the rest of the semester. (I am not sure yet if I should be review both you and Michaela's contributions though.)—Sabub talk

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * 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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The lead is simple and describes in slight detail what the article is about. More could possibly be added so someone will know the content more before getting to the summary.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead does mention influence which could be applied to the Legacy section.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is concise, but could use a bit more information I think.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content accurately represents what the original article is about.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?

I think there could be more up-to-date information since the most recent source is from 2006.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

has removed content that either does not relate or is not backed up. Based on her sandbox, she has plans to fill gaps in content, like the original article's influence.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

The current content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

While there isn't really a 'side' shown, I think it would be good to include people's view on the article and the situation it covers. If possible, it would be interesting to show the community's reaction more.


 * Does the content added 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?

New content has not yet been added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?

There could be more current sources.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Only one link does not work, however has indicated in her sandbox that she is looking for an updated link.

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?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
So far, even though there has not been much added, has good plans for content that can be added. I look forward to seeing how the article develops, so I can give a more in-depth review.—Sabub talk