User:Mnorymcc/Zoombombing/Cjyoon38 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? Mnorymcc / Hmonte
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Zoombombing

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead has nicely written but needs some minor improvements.

Some description of the sections need to be included as it was mentioned in the article.

It is said that the term "Zoombombing" also indicates for the phenomenon on the other online platform than the Zoom.

Thus, that line needs to be omitted if it would not be mentioned in one of the sections they wrote.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The latest information regarding the topic is April 8 2020, but some new information could be added as it has been a month since then.

Overall, the content is pretty much up-to-date and relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
It is somewhat understandable to be one-sided as the topic itself is quite negative, but it would be great if some of Zoom's improvements (in terms of security or function) could be added more.

It is informative to know that a lot of institutions and governments have banned the Zoom, but there are still numerous companies or organizations utilizing the platform.

Thus, adding more information on the usage of the Zoom could be considered as well.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the links work and the sources are pretty much from the major news media.

Overall, the sources are reliable and current.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Overall, the level of the organization of the article is descent. It is well-written and easy to read.

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?

Images and media evaluation
Unfortunately, there are no images added on this article.

It would be helpful if there are some images regarding the topic.

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?

New Article Evaluation
It does meet the Wikipedia's Notability requirements and other conditions that were mentioned above.

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, it is a concise and well-written article dealing with some interesting topic.

However, there is still room for improvement.

Some areas of improvements could be adding some visuals and balancing out the tone of the article.