User:Joseph Rivero/Knowledge society/Ard1228 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? Joseph Rivero
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Joseph Rivero/Knowledge society

Lead
Lead evaluation

The introductory sentence of the lead had no changes, but he did add more information to the end of the description. The information he added was very useful and it would help the reader understand more about what knowledge society is. However, I believe it would make more sense if he moves what he added at the end of the description to the begging after the lead sentence since the lead already explains what knowledge society is, the information he added complements what the lead sentence says.

Content
Some content added to the article is relevant to the topic, but some need to be developed a bit more. For example in the “Information and Communication Technology” section, he added a new paragraph that is quite interesting and true but it is getting a little out of context by adding how teachers don’t integrate these tools into the curriculum, this is irrelevant because the article is not based on whether they use it or not, it’s based on what these tools can do. In this same section of “Information and Communication Technology” the last sentence of the first paragraph says “ Tools of ICT have the potential to transform education, training, employment and access to life-sustaining resources for all members of society”, after this sentence I think it’s a good part of the article where he can elaborate more on that idea of how to transform education with these tools. He can do some more research on why these tools should be used for our education and learning process, why it would be easier for us to use these tools and continue his idea on how to change and add these tools to our education curriculum. He can algo elaborate these same ideas on training and employment. Besides this, the rest of the information added is relevant and well said.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added to the article was neutral, and it did not try to convince the reader in any way. it was providing new information for the reader.

Sources and references evaluation
The new information provided in the article is backed up by reliable sources. The sources are not up to date but they do work well.

Organization evaluation
Most of the content is very clear and easy to read, but I found the last paragraph of the section “Social Theory” a little difficult to understand. The only error I found was in the second paragraph on “Information and Communication Technology” where there are two words joined together “knowledgecreation”.

Images and media evaluation
My peer review article doesn’t provide images.

Overall evaluation
The article is no where to be completed as there are a lot of more information that could be added to make it a good article, but I believe it has improved from where he started and I’ve learned from it, so keep up the good work.