User:Sabub/Computer Lib/Dream Machines/Jameiladudley 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) Sabub
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Computer Lib/Dream Machines

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
I think that the lead gives a clear understanding on what is being said. I could not find any grammar errors to be noticeable.

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 is relevant in the sense of the topic that is being discussed in the introduction. I think that the content that was incorporated was nice to have because it had information to back it up, instead of their just being one or two sentences. The research is somewhat up to date, but I feel like it could be updated more.

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
The content has a good neutral based fact to be shown throughout the article. The majority of the article seemed to be fact based instead of opinion based I think. I really liked the subsection called "Neologisms" was pretty interesting because it shared the terms Nelson created.

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
Since this is a article, I feel that the secondary sources are reliable. The sources I feel could be somewhat more current, because the topic relates to the use of computer hacking today. The term of "Intertwingularity", discussed how information is connected, which is what the use of computers do.

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
The content in the article is formatted well in my opinion. It's simple, straight to the point, and also relevant to the sources. I did not find any grammatical errors I felt to be fixed.

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
There is one image included in the article. It is the first edition cover for the book "Computer Dreams/Lib Machine".

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?

Overall evaluation
I think that considering the article's length, there was still good workable links for the information. The sections included I feel are okay and should not be removed.