User:MotoMoto1952/Trojan horse (computing)/SusJawn35 Peer Review

General info
MotoMoto1952
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MotoMoto1952/Trojan horse (computing)/Bibliography:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Trojan horse (computing)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:


 * The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by the peer.
 * It includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic.
 * The lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * The lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * The lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content:


 * The content added is relevant to the topic.
 * The content appears to be up-to-date.
 * There is no content that does not belong, but there may be additional information that could enhance the article.
 * The article does not seem to directly address Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance:


 * The content added appears to be neutral.
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased.
 * Viewpoints seem to be appropriately represented.
 * The content does not appear to be attempting to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References:


 * All new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources.
 * The content accurately reflects what the cited sources say.
 * The sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * The sources are current.
 * It's unclear if the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors, but this could be improved by including more sources written by historically marginalized individuals.
 * The sources seem to be appropriate, but it's always good to check if there are better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles