User:OTUAustinOligario/Gaming computer/Treehugger743 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

OTUAustinOligario


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:OTUAustinOligario/Gaming computer


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gaming Computer

Lead

 * The lead does include new information that is reflected in new content that has been added by this user and made changed to the lead to include a more summarized understanding of a gaming computer.
 * The new content in the lead does clearly describe the topic of this article
 * The lead does briefly describe the articles major sections and the added content gaps.
 * The lead includes topics that are discussed throughout the article.
 * The lead is concise and straight to the point.

Content

 * The content added is relevant to the topic and improves the topic with better understanding of what a gaming computer is, the hardware found in a gaming compute and more detailed information as to what gaming computers are used for and why they are better for the certain activity (live streaming, gaming and video/photo editing).
 * The content added is up to date.
 * I don't believe there is content missing from this draft.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No

Tone and Balance

 * The content added is neutral with no biases.
 * 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

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes, new information added is from reliable, respected sources and some are from the Ontario Tech online library.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? - Yes
 * Are the sources thorough? - Yes, they are thorough and has the necessary information needed.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, most of the sources are current and are not outdated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes, I believe so.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? - No, I think sources used are well respected and have the correct information regarding the new added content.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - All links do work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, content is well written and understandable to users who do not know the terminology of computers terms. With easy to read summaries and explanations of some terms for example, the hardware terms.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - I did not see any spelling errors or grammatical errors for the new content added.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the new content is well organized and flows well.

Images and Media

 * There were no news images added for the new content of this article.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes, I do feel the new content added is useful to the original content as it explains more about the hardware and the main uses of gaming computers and why people choose to use gaming computers for those activities (livestreaming, gaming and video/editing).
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The strengths of the new content is better description of the hardware of gaming computers, which helps readers understand how gaming computers differ from regular computers. And a better understanding of why people tend to chose gaming computers.