User:Sabub/Computer Lib/Dream Machines/KhajadaNeal 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? 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? Yes it was last updated October 27, 2019
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the opening sentence describes the topic well and has the topic in the sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes the information in the lead matches and introduces the content.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No there is no extra information.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the information about Steven Levy could have been left out.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?Yes the content is relevant to the selected topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes all content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content about Steven Levy views on Nelson.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are no claims that seemed bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think everything was represented just right.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? None of the content is persuasive it is informative.

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? Yes they do reflect the literature.
 * Are the sources current? Yes the sources look current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All of the links work but references don’t have a link.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the content is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?The content spelling and grammar is fine.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the content is broken down into the right sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It does not have any images in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images that need a caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no images.

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 external links and notes have some good sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It is a small list of source. I’m not sure but I believe there could be more.
 * 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? Each section in the article has it’s own title.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes there are other links in the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is fine but more could make it complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The knowledge about Nelson and his double book.
 * How can the content added be improved? Finding more information to add to the content.