User:Lkd36/Alclear/Runddm 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) Lkd36
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Lkd36/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I do not see any updates made to the lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * 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 all information in the article is about AIclear
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yeas there is information of events taking place in 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes,
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Slightly biased towards negative content on AIclear
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would have like to see some data on the possible success of curbing terrorism in places that use AIclear
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not explicitly, there is just more info on the negatives of the company

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the group did a good job of sighting sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the links I checked worked and lead to a reliable source

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part however the list of locations could be formatted better
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections chosen make sense and reflect major points in the topic

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?