User:Khamelia H./Collaborative writing/SamanthaSabatiniYCP 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) Khamelia H.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Collaborative writing

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? From what I see, there hasn't been anything added to the lead, but Khamelia was having problems with having her work removed by another user so there may have been content added to the lead that was removed.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead does have a concise and clear sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead could expand more about the dynamics of collaborative writing which would in turn touch upon all the sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overly concise and needs a few more sentences to it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Well, I know we were advised to find sources coming from within the last 10 years on google scholar, but even though two of her sources are from 2004 and 2005, I believe they are still relevant and informative about collaborative writing. It's not information that is outdated or doesn't make sense. It provides good content about collaborative writing.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think there's anything that doesn't belong but I think the sections that only have one sentence maybe could be combined or altered in some way (unless those sections are going to be expanded upon).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, overall it appeared neutral to me.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I wouldn't say so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I think the information added shows both the negative and positive reviews on collaborative writing.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not.

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? Again, two sources that are used appear to be from 2005 and 2004, but other than that everything else is within the last 10 years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links in the sandbox work perfectly fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is easy to understand and organized very well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I was only confused by the wording of this sentence. Not sure if this was added or is a part of the original Wikipedia article itself before we started this project. Ex. "In this view, all sections of the text should be split up to ensure the workload is evenly displaced, all participants work together and interact throughout the writing process, everyone contributes to planning, making of ideas, making structure of text, editing, and the revision process."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it explains the tools used for collaborative writing, and collaborative writings presence in education.

Images and Media N/A
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 N/A
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, I like the content about the studies on the business textbooks as well as the Nurse and Attorney having different writing styles. It helps me understand and see the dilemma that this topic comes into contact with.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good, reputable sources that provide insight into CW. Good sentence structure and variation.
 * How can the content added be improved? Not sure about the authorship and reasons for using CW section. Maybe the authorship can be explained in the lead, or combined with the "As an education tool" section. Something should be done with the these two sections but I'm not exactly sure what.