User:Juanmendez76/Network Security/Ayalah Gittler 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? Juanmendez76
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Network security

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead can use some updating with mentioning more about what's in the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes it does.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is a bit over detailed--needs to be edited so it's more short and concise and leave the extra details for the body.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I do not see reference links.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is a lot of content that should be added, such as talking about up-to-date security issues.

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? Just needs to add more content in general.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no.

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? They are relatively recent, the past 6 years or so. Can use some more up to date articles though.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read and clear.
 * 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? It could use some more organization and have more sections so the Lead isn't as overly detailed.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no.
 * Are images well-captioned? no pictures.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no pictures.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no pictures.

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?: Needs some more reliable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?: list of sources isn't very big.
 * 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, includes everything needed for a basic article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?: It does have some links, however could use more. One is not found.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Needs more editing and content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved? Just organize better and add some more from reliable sources.

Overall evaluation
Overall the article has a good start but needs more content, the Lead needs to be shorter and more concise, and needs more reliable sources.