User:Mcroll333/User:Mcroll333/sandbox/Birenn 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? Mcroll333
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mcroll333/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it does
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Much better than the quote from the previous version. yes it does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Sections not needed
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes it includes new information about ATT for example
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is short sweet and concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? It was relevant because it was about telecom
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes stuff that we used in the past such as Kodak cameras and PDA were added to the article
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Do not think so

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It does seem to be very neutral, and more sticking to the point
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is not
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is not
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? More just technical information, does not run into problem of persuasion

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes there is even a book by a professor used
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They are relevant
 * Are the sources current? Just from a few years ago such as 2017
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They all do work fine

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Very easy to read and clear
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Does not seem to be
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? In short paragraphs yes it is organized well

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes it reminded me of my childhood looking at the old phone
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes but maybe can be labeled as the phone type? like model name maybe, usually their technical with pictures.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? It seems to be just fine
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes it seems to be slayed perfectly

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? Yes it adds a few more paragraphs and tells the reader about a few more tools.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? That it is about relevant material, easy to read. There is not too much added making it harder to read.
 * How can the content added be improved? By Just adding pictures of PDA and Kodak perhaps and maybe making a bolded section