User:NicoleCastigs17/Communication privacy management theory/Jlpowell5 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)
 * Nicole Castiglia/NicoleCastigs17
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:NicoleCastigs17/sandbox

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
'''The Lead was not edited or altered. The original content remained -- nothing was added or omitted.'''

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 background was edited with new content added. What was added seems to be resent and relevant to the subject matter. There are a few words/phrases that can be removed to polish the syntax.

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
Generally, the content added appears to be neutral and relevant to the article. I don't see anything added that would constitute as under/overrepresented. Moreover, I also didn't observe any content that seemed to be persuasive in nature. However, there seems to be some editorializing in the Self-Disclosure section with the sentence "Let's face it." This could be seen as opinionated.

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
The sources seem to all be reliable as they are from scientific journals, so the research is credible and relevant. It looks like the sources are current with some having publication years of 2013 and 2017. The oldest one I saw I had a publication date of 2006, which doesn't make it irrelevant, just foundational.

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
As mentioned before, some of the sentences can be omitted, but overall the content looked clean of errors. It also seems to be organized and formatted correctly.

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
No images were added.

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?

Overall evaluation
From my reading, the quality of the article with the new content is improved. It seems to read in a more complete manner as Nicole expounded upon workplace and family factors of CPM. The content is clear and relevant to the article and fits well. The only correction I can make is to rephrase some of the sentences so that information can be easily understood for the average reader. Overall, I think it was a draft of good quality.