User:Sauceboss12/Information assurance/Imakespaghetti29 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? Sauceboss12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Link

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: The Lead has been updated and includes a clear introduction that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It does not include a brief description of the article's major sections yet (for example, business development) No, it does not contain information that is not present in the article and is concise and clear.

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?

Content evaluation: The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. From my understanding of the topic, there is no content that is missing. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps; and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

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 added is neutral and no claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

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?

Sources and references evaluation: Yes, most new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. All sources haven't been added yet, but the available sources do reflect the available literature on the topic and are current and up-to-date. The sources I checked are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I checked a few links, only the first one seems to take me to a repository rather than directly to the article.

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 added is well-written and concise, clear, and easy to read. The content does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The content added is well-organized; and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

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: One image on the McCumber cube has been added yet, and is well captioned and enhances my understanding of the topic. It adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and is 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?

New Article Evaluation: The article is not a new article.

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: The content added has definitely improved the overall quality of the article and makes the article more complete. In my opinion, the content added is easy to read and gives a person new to the topic a clear insight into it. The content can be improved by making the sections (especially towards the end) a bit more detailed.