User:OwlFall2019/User:OwlFall2019/sandbox/Tuh00694 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) OwlFall2019
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:OwlFall2019/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer N/A - this article is new and unpublished.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the author states the definition of ghost work and who coined the term. However, I suggest removing the first sentence as it's a little unnecessary.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead states the topic of ghost work, the definition, the book, and who coined the term. This leads to two additional sections: the book and the background of the author.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. The first sentence (There are tasks....) is related to ghost work, but should be removed since it appears as fluff.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise and informational.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, most of the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content appears to be up-to-date as recent edits have been made in the last few weeks due to WikiEdu assignments.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is content that does not belong or should be phrased differently. For example, the opening sentence of the Lead is a little unnecessary. It almost seems like an opinion. I would just start with “Ghost Work,” a term discussed (…). This just lets the audience know right away what the article is about without any fluff.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The majority of the content is neutral, however, there are some phrases ("It's basically," "important work," "that our society has been used to for decades") that sound like opinions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, see answers above. Some wording (important, basically, used to) are too strong to use for a neutral tone.
 * 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? A little - see the notes above. Some wording sounds like an opinion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes and no. The author does use the scholar's book and BBC article. However, there appears to be an Amazon.com source and MIT video. The Amazon.com source seems a little unreliable just due to the fact the Amazon is more well-known as an e-commerce company and has many users interacting to sell products. Also, the MIT video could be a little unreliable since the author is talking about her own work and might present biases toward this topic.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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?

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?

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? Yes and no. Yes - the author does provide a BBC article and an Amazon.com source, but the Amazon.com source has been unconfirmed as an unreliable topic. No - the author uses the scholar's book (not independent of the subject) and a MIT video (author talking about her her own work).
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The author lists four sources which are all used throughout the article. This list might not represent available literature on the subject since this assignment and topic is currently being discussed.
 * 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? No - this article is new and unpublished. However, it does follow a similar structure to other articles on Wikipedia.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Since this article is new and unpublished and has no edit summaries, it's difficult to determined how each edit has improved the article. However, the present content is informational and structured well.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The Ghost Work: How to Stop... is the strongest section of this article. This article provides a lot of in-depth information on the topic and several viewpoints, as well.
 * How can the content added be improved? Be careful with some phrases like "It's important," "It's basically...," and "used to" since these sound like opinion words. Also, I suggest adding edit summaries to each edit the author makes so he/she knows what changes are being made for more organization.