User:Lemontgomery/Social robot/Liviaamurphy444 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lemontgomery


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Social robot
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * - Everything seems relevant, however, I believe that the healthcare section could be further broken down and simplified.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * - Yes, the article mentions more "favored" examples of non-humanoid robots, however, there is no evidence that it is more preferred by the public sphere
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * - Yes, I believe that pro-robot writers are more represented than authors who may explore the negative sides of growing and developing technology.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * - No, the entire background section is missing citations to back its claims.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * - As I mentioned, a majority of the srticle is missing citations, which makes the pro-robot content more obvious.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * - Most of the sources are far over 10 years old, which regarding the rapid recent development of robots, seems outdated.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * - No, the entire background section is missing citations to back its claims.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * - As I mentioned, a majority of the srticle is missing citations, which makes the pro-robot content more obvious.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * - Most of the sources are far over 10 years old, which regarding the rapid recent development of robots, seems outdated.
 * - As I mentioned, a majority of the srticle is missing citations, which makes the pro-robot content more obvious.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * - Most of the sources are far over 10 years old, which regarding the rapid recent development of robots, seems outdated.
 * - Most of the sources are far over 10 years old, which regarding the rapid recent development of robots, seems outdated.
 * - Most of the sources are far over 10 years old, which regarding the rapid recent development of robots, seems outdated.