User:Lucymobe/Digital divide in the United States/SumayyahGhori 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? (Lucymobe)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lucymobe/Digital divide in the United States

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, except for educational attainment. There is no information on the educational attainment aspect in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, but the first paragraph in the gender subheading needs a citation.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all the sources seem reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? For such a current topic, there does not seem to be enough sources in the references list.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, all in the last couple years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, although not all citations have links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 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? I think that the one subheading (Location) under the "means of connectivity" heading could be better structured into the article. Regions do count as a demographic, so it could just go under the demographic heading, instead of its own. Or, you could see if there are any other means of connectivity, and add more subheadings to that heading.

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 images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It could use a couple more sources.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it is more complete and accurate.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? They more accurately reflect the reality of the digital divide.
 * How can the content added be improved? There has to be more than one means of connectivity. Having a more well-rounded section would definitely add to the quality of the article!