User:IntheHeartofTexas/Indiscriminate monitoring/Eddyd101 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? IntheHeartofTexas
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:IntheHeartofTexas/Indiscriminate monitoring

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 concise and clear, however, I feel it is a bit generic for your topic. It seemed to describe monitoring, but didn't touch on indiscriminate monitoring specifically.

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 article's content is relevant and appears to be up to date. I think the article is missing information that would differentiate indiscriminate monitoring from generic monitoring. It mentions a little bit about indiscriminate in the government protections section, but it would be good to go further.

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 is presented in a neutral manner. The issues with indiscriminate monitoring are over represented. The effects section only deals with negatives associated with indiscriminate monitoring. Adding something in about why people choose to use indiscriminate monitoring could help balance the article. Another option is to change the title of the effects section to something like "controversies" so it is clear that you are only going to present information on the problems with indiscriminate monitoring.

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
The information is backed up by reliable sources that appear to reflect available literature on the topic. The sources are current and the links work. However, there should be more sources included in the article. Right now, it appears there are only five sources used, and while everything was cited, it seems you could rely less on the few sources currently included.

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 article is well written and contains very few errors. A few things could be tweaked to improve the flow of the article, but these edits are mostly stylistic. 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
No images were 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?

New Article Evaluation
The article meets the notability requirements, but does not yet include an exhaustive list of sources. It links to other articles especially in the lead section. I believe the article follows the pattern of similar articles.

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
The article is off to a good start, but needs to be expanded. The article's current strength is its readability. The information was clearly presented, which was great. The article can be improved by being expanded to include more information on the topic specifically information that differentiates this entry from the entry on monitoring.