User:RiaVora/Alt-tech/VillusionV 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?
 * 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?

In RiaVora's Sandbox, the user gives the guidelines to the changes that will be made. This includes editing the introduction of the actual article and adding specific examples of Alt-tech related to politics. Although the user explains what they will do, there is no actual editing of the Lead or an introductory sentence that the user changes. It simply states the challenges the user came across and the future changes that will be made.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, the added content is relevant to the topic. Of the 28 sources included, there are a few sources dating from 2020 so the content added is up to date. Since the user is adding examples relating to a topic unfamiliar to me, it is impossible for me to assume that there is anything missing, but the additions do pair well with filling the gaps in the present article in bringing it up to date.

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?

No I do not believe the content is completely neutral. The user uses phrases such as " far-right" or "most" which can be seen as qualifiers. Also the "far-right" can be interpreted that the user creating the edit is among the democratic party meaning that there is a potential, yet possibly unintentional bias present. The user should replace this word with a more neutral term such as "republican" or "conservative." Other than this example, it seems that the additions do not contain any biases although there does need to be corrections for a few words that would pose to hold a bias.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

All the sources used are written and created by popular news websites such as ABC or Politico. This could be a problem however as these websites typically hold a bias towards a specific political party. Given this, the user can still use these websites if they are able to extract the facts and include them in the article without the presence of a bias. Many of the sources are dated from 2020 and are up to date, presenting a wide array of information with a diverse spectrum of authors. I checked a few of the links and they all work for me. There was also a citation of another Wikipedia article which showcased many different authors with additional secondary sources.

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?

Yes, the content is concise, clear, and easy to read. Upon a first glance there does not appear to be any spelling errors and the sections in the sandbox are organized by the specific system or software they are talking about: Gab, Hatreon, Voat. There are also subtopics of the challenges the user faces and a small overview of changes.

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?
 * 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?

My overall impressions are positive although there does not seem to be any radical changes, not a problem by the way. The addition of the three subtopics are important for brining the existing article up to date and providing additional examples for curious Wiki surfers. The content can be further improved however by eliminating any qualifying words that allude to any potential bias. -VillusionV