User:Kiannajade/Video games in education/UndercoverWinger 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)
 * Kianna Acevedo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Video games in education

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has been updated and has been reworded.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead's introduction sentence does have a clear and concise description of the topic Videos games in education.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it includes a brief informative articulation.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is done efficiently and does not have any grammatically mistakes.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content provided is relevant to Video games in education.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content provided for video games in education is up-to-date due to the mention of guitar hero and animal crossing.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Everything belongs in the content.

Content evaluation
The content provides sufficient information for reader to obtain information. The content flows with the material that was added.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes all is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoints are are equally distributed and have the same amount of shared importance.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the article does not persuade the reader in favor of one position or the other.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance of the article are decent. There is no bias shown in the article and the tone in neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All the new content is back up by a secondary source, there are links provided.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes I checked the sources and they are reliable and thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources that have been provided have been checked and each of them work properly. The sources provided provided information to the topic Kianna has introduced in the article making it more articulate.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Content is easy to read and flows well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical errors or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes broken down reasonably.

Organization evaluation
The content provided is easy to read and flows with the rest of the wikipedia article.

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.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No.

Images and media evaluation
There are no images nor media presented in the article.

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?
 * Overall the article has a good amount of content. The material flows with everything new that was added in the article. there were no images or media resources provided. There are citation provided in the article that reenforce Kianna's new added points.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths are the citations and the new added paragraph starting with "Game similar in nature to Animal Crossing..."
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding images or media would be a good addition.
 * Adding images or media would be a good addition.

Overall evaluation
This article was done properly, the material created an influence that allowed the rest of the article to flow. There were citation added that helped support and give a liability to Kianna's added statements.