User:Pv2020/Knowledge divide/Khillm 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)  Oakinfe1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Knowledge divide

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 has been updated to reflect new content added by my peer. The introductory sentence is concise and clear. The Lead could do a better job of giving a brief overview of the major sections of the article. The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.

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 content added is relevant to the topic. The content is not that up to date. Most of the references do not go beyond 2005. Some content that could be added is to the gender and between nations sections.

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
Majority of the article is neutral, but in the "digital divide" section, it is a big negative. The wording could be updated to have a more neutral stance.

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
Most of the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. However, there are only 3 references listed. This is not enough, especially because the sources are all from the same year, 2003. This is a long time ago, and therefore the sources could be more up to date. The first reference link does not work. The sources seem reliable because they are journal articles. The Notes and References section should be combined.

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
There are a few grammatical errors. For example, in the introduction, it would be better to say knowledge society "became" pervasive rather than becomes. Also, the content is well organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. For the "Between nations" section, it may be good to add a few more sentences next to the "Democracy" bullet. Overall, the content added is concise 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
The article does not include any images that enhance the understanding of the topic. For this reason, I am not able to answer the other questions. I would suggest the author to add at least 3 images that are well-captioned.

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
The article existed before with edits all the way back in 2011. It is not a new article.

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
The added content has improved the overall quality of the article, and it is more complete. The strengths of the content added are that the sections have been more filled in, specifically the gender section because race was added. The content can be improved with the combining of the notes and references section, fixing grammatical errors, and expanding on all of the sections. Also, taking a more neutral stance.