User:Jayla P/Convergence culture/TyraWashington 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? Convergence culture
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Convergence culture

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? ye, it has been elaborated on and more details added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? it sets us up for what this theory is related to.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? it reads about participatory culture, collective intelligence, and convergeing technological enviroments, however few topics are left out.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, things like the matrix or transmedia storytelling is an example.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? not overly detailed, it is clear what convergence culture means.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes it all relates
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes it's up to date because it mentions things like smartphones, however it could relate more to technologies today.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? everything belongs, it could bring in more uptodate examples.

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? two are underrepresented and the rest are done well.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no it's straight infromation no biases

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? most current is 2017 which isn't bad
 * 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? there are some grammatical errors, the spelling is fine
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes very organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * 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? no, could be a bit bigger

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? yes many reliable sources
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes, all are written on
 * 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? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes it does, very good job.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? it needs more dept, however there is still time.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? the strengths are it's very information based and is very organized. it also touches on different aspects of this book so everything is touched on.
 * How can the content added be improved? some of the sentences could be cited, and some things can have more added to them.

Overall evaluation
overall, I really think this article is done well, and is definitely a good start to a great article. good job guys!