User:Isabella Pham/Digital rhetoric/Cquinn1112 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) Isabella Pham
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Digital rhetoric

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, they have expanded on the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the Lead opens with a clear definition of the article topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead briefly touches on major sections but mostly expands the definition of the topic.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All information in the lead is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is a paragraph, it contains an in-depth description of the topic, but is still concise.

Lead evaluation
The Lead was already fairly in-depth, but the information added does give more insight into the topic. It doesn't describe the other sections too well, but since there are many major areas, its understandable to not describe them all.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All added content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content comes from recent sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content feels important to the article and topic.

Content evaluation
The content added feels relevant to the topic and naturally flows into the article. Everything added feels important to understanding the topic more.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? All content appears neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The claims feel unbiased and factual.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The views presented mostly feel balanced, though some concepts feel underdeveloped compared to others.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article only describes the positions with factual points.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article continues to feel neutral throughout, and doesn't seem to favor any particular area or position. The views feel balanced in presentation.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources seem reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are important to the article.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources used are recent, coming from the past few years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? One of the sources was not linked, and another linked to how to buy the book, making it difficult to thoroughly review the source.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used appear to be reliable, and come from relevant areas of study. Some of the links don't easily bring up the article, but ways to purchase it. Though the sources are good, it can be made easier to trace them and view them separately.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is all to the point, and feels relevant to the topics.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? All content seemed to be well-written with no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is broken down into many sub-sections, making navigation much easier.

Organization evaluation
All the content was well-written, with few or no errors, clear points, and easy presentation. With the way the article is organized, it was easy to find specific areas and points.

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? The article was already long and thorough, but the new information does feel like a proper expansion, relating directly to the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content expands on new areas, but only gives key information, staying focused.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can benefit from other sources, and easier ways to access the already available sources.

Overall evaluation
The article was already very expansive and featured lots of information, but what was added felt important and relevant to the article. The added content was also clear in its writing, and stayed focused on the topic. With what was added, it could benefit from easier access to the sources.