User:JCA0502/Distance education/L.Derrick15 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? JCA0502 and Jhpearlson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:JCA0502/Distance education

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The addition provides more information regarding what is considered distance education.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content originally provided regarding distance learning during the Coronavirus outbreak was very broad and did not provide much information. The original information appears to be from the early months of the outbreak while the additional information provided by my peers regards updated information since we are now months into the outbreak.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Content that was added fits the context but the location of the edits for Benefits should be placed after the fifth paragraph in that section. The added content to the Criticism section could be added within the already provided content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No additions were made dealing with this.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The additions to criticism could be added to that section's paragraph 7.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No - just provides more information on the topic

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Original article included photos
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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 - especially for the Coronavirus section
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths are that it provides up-to-date information on how education has transition during the Coronavirus pandemic. The addition to Educational Technology and Transactional Distance includes a great theory to support the information in that section.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The information added in the Criticism and Benefits section could be added to the original article. There is already a lot of information provided in these sections which can drowned out the additional information added.