User:KhajadaNeal/Why The Future Doesn't Need Us/Vada.amerson 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) KhajadaNeal
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Why The Future Doesn't Need Us

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

==== Lead evaluation I think that lead needs to be added more with content, and I think it has a clear statement about authors and their work about how the future won't need us. The lead includes a description about Bill Joy, but not about Ray Kurzweil or John McGinnis in other sections.The lead is not concise, and it needs to add more detail, and also it needs to talk about the other two authors that are mentioned in the sections, but not in the lead. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

==== Content evaluation Some of the content is added to the article like critics and Bill Joy. The content is not up-to-date, it needs to be more clear. It looks like it's vague. I don't think the aftermath is needed because it talks about how Bill Joy's scenario will not come true, plus it doesn't have enough information. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

==== Tone and balance evaluation The content is not neutral, and I don't think there are any biased claims. I think most of them are facts. There are viewpoints that are underrepresented because it does not have enough information to be convincing to a reader. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

==== Sources and references evaluation Most of the content is backed by a secondary source such as articles. Most of the sources are thorough, and it looks that they are reliable. All of the sources are current, however, there were some that did not have working links. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

==== Organization evaluation Some of the content is written well. It is clear, and easy to read. However I think the article is short, and it just needs more support and evidence. There are much grammar errors and it looks organized, it just needs to add more content. ====

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

==== Overall evaluation The article is not fully complete, however it looks good for a start. The strengths of it are not much grammar errors, well organized, and I think that the content can be improved as long as there are more content that is relevant to "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us." Or add more information about a certain secondary sources. ====