User:RiaVora/Alt-tech/Bryankjh 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)
 * RiaVora
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:RiaVora/Alt-tech

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No the changes that my peer made is adding specific sections to the article instead of editing the lead section.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the Lead sentence currently has a introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections because there are no further sections within the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead seems to be overly detailed compared to other articles. I think some of the topics mentioned in the Lead can be divided into their own topics.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think the Overview of Challenges can be expanded with more sources and content because it currently only includes analysis on one historian.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, overall the content added does a good job of maintaining a neutral point of view.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I think the abundance of alt-right platforms may raise the question of whether or not alt-left platforms do not exist.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the viewpoint that most of these alt-tech platforms are for the right is an idea that may be overrepresented by the platforms explored in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all the new content is backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there is a thorough and diverse range of sources in the bibliography.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all the sources are up-to-date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I cannot determine if there is enough historically marginalized authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes all the links seem to be functional.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added is well written and easy to read. I think adding more Wikipedia article links embedded within the text can be one improvement.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, there are no major grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, I think the division of what the sections are going to be still needs to determined by the author.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added improved the overall quality. The original article consists of just a long lead section and is not organized or divided in any way. I think that adding sections of these specific examples makes the article more complete and neutral.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added is that they go deeper into each different platform and is able to characterize each platform individually. There are lots of sources to back up the new content and it is well cited.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * One way the content added can be improved is by expanding on the "Challenges" section. I think this is an important section to have and it seems like there is more that can be added. Also, if there is an example of an alt-tech platform from the left, I think adding that would help make the article seem more neutral.