User:Laurenbeth76/Augmented Reality/Ben Gallagher Jones 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

 * Laurenbeth76
 * Augmented reality

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * One sentence has been added, however it doesn't reflect the same information that my peer will add after it. The new sentence describes what augmented reality is while the rest is about an educational study. Although there is nothing wrong with it.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I think the new sentence only adds on to the full intro sentence further describing augmented reality.
 * 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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it adds on to what Augmented reality is and what use it has on society.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * If 2016 counts as up to date then yes. Although there is a quote from 2009 used and that could be seen as dated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In the new content, there is a study done by Akçayır, Akçayır, Pektaş, and Ocak that reveals their conclusion, but does not have an explanation on how they conducted the experiment.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Most of the time. There are some sentences that use positively leaning words like "first", or start with a question.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All the new content (except addition to lead) is about educational studies, but it does have value and would be fine additions to the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It tries to persuade me that using AR in a social interaction is bad, however that seems pretty true so its ok.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * If electronic diary's counts as a reliable source, then Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Could not find the article pages.
 * Are the sources current?
 * One looks to be from 2016, so yes. Another uses a quote from 2009, so I'm not so sure about that one.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The link worked, but it could not find the page.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, although it might be a little too formal for wikipedia.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nope
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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?
 * 3 different sources
 * 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?
 * I think it will be once the new content is officially added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Gives studies for what the topic could be useful for in the real world.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe add a little bit more information that isn't about education. Also, be more descriptive of the study by Akçayır, Akçayır, Pektaş, and Ocak.