User:Samamc94/COVID-19 apps/LauraStephens435 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):  Samamc94
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Samamc94/COVID-19 apps

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It does not look like it has been updated, however, I'm not certain.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is concise but also informative of what COVID-19 apps are and what they are used for.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It doesn't mention all the major sections.  The Lead could be improved in that way.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. The section in the Lead about privacy concerns with apps seems like it should be placed in the body of the article instead of in the lead section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The first sentence is good, but the next two paragraphs seem a little misplaced.  Should the Lead discuss the major sections briefly, and then the information appear in the body of the article?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all the content belongs, and I can't identify anything that seems to be missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, claims are backed up with facts and references.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they do.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, as COVID-19 is a recent happening, all sources are newer/current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, it appears that the authors are diverse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, concise and factual.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - Not applicable


 * 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? - Yes the added information is relevant and improves the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The added information tells about where the virus originated and includes a reliable source.
 * How can the content added be improved? - The content is good, but the article could flow better than it currently does. It seems like some of the information in the Lead should be in its own section.

Overall evaluation
'''Great! This is a new and interesting subject that many people aren't aware of. It's fascinating to read this.'''