User:LBrew1/Online communication between school and home/BradenHeath Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

LBrew1 (Luke Brewer)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User :LBrew1/Online_communication_between_school_and_home?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Online communication between school and home

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, the lead has not been updated in this version of the rough draft.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence is good and describes the topic very well while giving a basic definition of the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead lists part of the topic, which are then split into sections in the major sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead is very concise and only shares information present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant as it adds updated information about how the pandemic had an effect in this topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up to date as it was content about COVID-19.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think the last small paragraph added is good information, but it does not fit under the subheading that the other information is under. Maybe try finding another major section to fit this into such as the tech section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, it does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that are heavily based one way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think there is lots of focus on how the pandemic negatively affected communication, but I think you could include a viewpoint of how it possibly may have helped some people with communication as well.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not try to persuade the reader. The one part I would consider editing is "This meant that people were getting cabin fever of sorts and not getting the face to face interaction that many humans need." This statement should be re-worked so it doesn't show as much of your own feelings about human necessity.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all new ideas in content having reliable secondary sources backing them up.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, the content matches what the sources are talking about, and give good explanations of the sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are thorough and have information on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, all the sources are between 2019 and 2022.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources are all written by various different types of authors who write about slightly different areas and fields, but they don't include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) After looking through some other peer-reviewed articles, I found a few more that could be useful, however, the sources included in this update work perfectly with what is trying to be added.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, most the new content is well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a couple spots where a comma can be added, but there are no major errors in grammar or spelling.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is well organized until the last part of the section. I think the information about the language barriers can be broken off into another paragraph under this same section, and the second paragraph added should be placed in a different section altogether.

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


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

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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, the content added has improved the quality of the article, as it offers an update of how a big life event such as the pandemic has effected this type of communication.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The added content relates the areas talked about in this topic with some recent real world applications of this type of communication.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the content added was great. There are a few parts that seem a little wordy, or over-explained that can be edited down a bit. Also, include another sentence or two about the language barrier ideas, and make it its own paragraph in the same section. Good work!